Date of Filing : 09.05.2013
Date of Order : 03.03.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.193/2013
THURSDAY THIS 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016
K. Balasundaram,
Door No.E 242,
12th Street,
4th Cross Road,
Periyar Nagar,
Chennai – 02. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Manager,
Speed Post Business Office,
Creams Road, P.O., Building,
Chennai -06.
2. The Director, (Mails and Speed Post),
Office of the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai – 02.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kurnool Division,
Kurnool 518 001. (A.P.) ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the Opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. S.Siva Shanmugam
For the 3rd opposite party : Exparte.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has sent the document relating to his claim for reimbursement for their medical expense incurred by him to his eye operation from the Government of Andhra Pradesh where he worked as a Tahsildar and retired on superannuation in a cover by speed post through Indian Postal Department from Jawahar Nagar Chennai to his friend one K.Venkatachalam Door No.87/1208-1, N.R. Revenue Colony Kurnool (A.P) Pin 518 002 for the purpose of engaging counsel to file case for the said claim in the court of law. Whereas since the said cover sent by speed post would have been reached within 3 days i.e. on or before 18.10.2012. But the said speed post cover sent by the complainant was not delivered to the address in time but was said to have been delivered on 26.10.2012 to the said address to a boy related to the said addressee without obtaining any signature and complying necessary procedure for delivery known to the Postal Department with delay. As such the act of the opposite parties is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for a sum of Rs. Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of 1st and 2nd opposite parties are briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties submit that the complaint was received from the sender / complainant regarding non delivery of Speed post article on 22.10.2012. The details of the case was lodged under web compliant No.111116-26338, it was intimated by the delivery post office that due to GDS strike from 16.10.2012. The delivery details of the Speed post article was intimated to the complainant and asked to forward the copy of booking receipt for processing refund. The reply was provided to the complainant vide this office letter No. SP/C/2934/12 dated 20.11.2012 stating that due to administrative reasons, this opposite parties had suffered delay and as per departmental rules, refund of Speed post charges of Rs.35/- was refunded and sent through e.MO dated 14.11.2012. Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 3rd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 3rd opposite party was set exparte on 26.9.2013.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties 1 & 2 are filed and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
6. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 filed on the side of complainant and considered the both side arguments.
7. As per the both side pleadings on record there is no dispute that the complainant has sent the document relating to his claim for reimbursement for their medical expense incurred by him to his eye operation from the Government of Andhra Pradesh where he worked as a Tahsildar and retired on superannuation in a cover by speed post through Indian Postal Department from Jawahar Nagar Chennai to his friend one K.Venkatachalam Door No.87/1208-1, N.R. Revenue Colony Kurnool (A.P) Pin 518 002 for the purpose of engaging counsel to file case for the said claim in the court of law. Whereas the said cover sent by speed post would have been reached within 3 days i.e. on or before 18.10.2010. But the said speed post cover sent by the complainant was not delivered to the address in time but was said to have been delivered on 26.10.2012 to the said address to a boy related to the said addressee without obtaining any signature and complying necessary procedure for delivery known to the Postal Department with delay.
8. Whereas the opposite parties has resisted the complaint by saying that the delay in delivering the complaint mentioned speed post article is due to strike prevailing on the relevant area of addressee during 16.10.2010 to 23.10.2010 and such unavoidable circumstances which cannot be said to be negligent or deficiency of service on the part of Postal Department. Further as per Postal Departmental Rules the complainant was only entitled for the refund of the speed post charges paid for the alleged postal article. Accordingly it was ordered and paid to the complainant. As such the opposite parties have contended the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. Whereas the complainant has contended that the complainant also made complaint to the postal department with regard to the above said delay in delivering the speed post alleging that the delay caused by the postal department is amount to deficiency of service as such claiming compensation and also asking remedy under RTI Act to the concerned officer of Right Information of the Postal Department as per the complaint Ex.A7 dated 5.11.2012. For the said complaint the Manager Department of Post Speed post business office Creams Road Po Building, Chennai (the 1st opposite party herein) has passed order Ex.A10, dated 12.9.2012 by stating that the delay is due to administrative reason i.e.(G.D.S) Grain Dak Sevaks strike and as per Departmental rule the charge collected from the complainant for speed post a sum of Rs.35/- is ordered for refund with giving option to the complainant to prefer an appeal with Sri Parimal Sinha, Director. Since, the complainant was not satisfied with the above decision and the complainant has preferred an appeal before the Sri Parimal Sinha Director (Mails & Speed post) 1st Appellate authority under the right to information act 2006 office of the Chief Postmaster General, T.N Circle, Chenai-2 (opposite party-2). As per the copy of the appeal memorandum filed herewith as Ex.A12, in the said proceedings, on the reference made by the Director (Mails and Speed post Chennai) the complainant has received letter from Department of letter Ex.A15 dated 5.2.2013 from the Department of Post, India O/o of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnool Division, Karnool-I in which it is mentioned as information sought for that “the above said speed post article has been delivered to the addressee on 26.10.2012. Due to the strike call given by Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), Camp-B LSG SO which is delivery office of the said Speed Post article was not functioned and alternate arrangements could not be made as most of the officials have participated in the strike. The strike period was extended from 16.10.2012 to 22.10.2012 and due to which heavy mails were accumulated and suitable steps were taken to get the delivery of accumulated mails after the strike was called-off. Mean while on 24.10.2012 there was a holiday on account of Dussera festival, and hence the article was delivered on 26.10.2012 to K.Shashank who is the grand son of the addressee. As per the rules speed post article can be delivered to any person who is having relationship with the addressee in the given address. The liability of the Postal Department regarding delay in delivery of speed post article is only refunding of speed post charges to the sender. (information of compensation is enclosed which is available on India Post web site www. Indiapost.gov.in). “…. With the copy of the office memorandum Ex.A16 register of attendance Ex.A17 filed herewith.
10. According to the complainant as per the above particulars mentioned in Ex.A16, and Ex.A17 though the Postal Department temporary staffs of the concerned area were on strike there were regular post men who were attended the office and they were on duty if so the reason stated by the opposite parties that the complaint mentioned Speed post articles could not be delivered in time and the delay caused due to strike of the postmen is not proper reason as such the delay caused in the delivery of the complaint mentioned Postal article sent by the complainant to one Venkatachalam of Karnool is due to willful and negligent of duty on the part of the Postman concerned as such as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Postal Department is liable to compensate the complainant for his mental agony and hardship caused due to the said delay in delivery of article.
11. Whereas the above particulars relied by the complainant with regard to attendance of the regular postman and attended duty as per Ex.A17 is not specifically denied by the opposite parties and there is no proper explanation on the side of the opposite parties that since some of the regular postman were attended the office and carried out duties during the alleged strike period i.e. 16.10.2012 to 20.10.2012, 22.10.2012 & 23.10.2012 and also 25.10.2012 in relevant area, why through them the said speed post articles was not delivered on those days to the addressee. Considering the above facts we are of the considered view that the act of the postman to the concerned area who ought to have delivered the said postal article to the addressee in time which is willful default and negligence on the part of the concerned postman on duty is acceptable. So the Postal Department is liable to pay compensation to the complainant in addition to the refund of Rs.35/- the speed post charge already ordered by opposite parties to the complainant as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act for the willful default and negligence committed by the concerned postman on duty, and the postal department / the opposite parties may collect the same from the erred postman by initiating necessary Departmental action also. Therefore we are of the considered view that for the mental suffering and the hardship caused to the complainant due to delay in delivering the said speed post article, the postal department is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. However the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- claim made in the complaint by the complainant against the opposite parties is exorbitant on considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount (Rs.10,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 3rd day of March 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 11.11.1955 - Copy of S.S.L.C. Certificate.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of Medical bill receipts.
Ex.A3- 15.10.2012 - Copy of Speed post Articles
Ex.A4- 20.10.2012 - Copy of complaint made to booking office.
Ex.A5- 27.10.2012 - Copy of letter of the addressee K.Venkatachalam.
Ex.A6- 1.11.2012 - Copy of letter of opposite party-1 to the complainant.
Ex.A7- 5.11.2012 - Copy of letter of the complainant to opposite party-1.
Ex.A8- 5.11.2012 - Copy of application of the complainant.
Ex.A9- 15.11.2012 - Copy of Department of posts e.mo. delivery slip.
Ex.A10- 20.11.2011- Copy of letter of opposite party-1 to the complainant.
Ex.A11- 26.11.2012- Copy of delivery slip of Speed Post articles.
Ex.A12- 16.12.2012- Copy of Appeal application.
Ex.A13- 26.12.2013-Copy of letter received with B.D. Directorate’s
Ex.A14- 16.1.2013 - Copy of letter of opposite party-2 to the complainant.
Ex.A15- 5.2.2013 - Copy of letter of opposite party-3 to the complainant.
Ex.A16- 1.3.2013 - Copy of letter of opposite party-3 to the complainant.
Ex.A17- - - Copy of attendance register.
Ex.A18- 11.3.2013 - Copy of letter of the complainant to the opposite party-3.
Ex.A19- 28.3.2013 - Copy of letter of opposite party-3 to the complainant.
Ex.A20- - - Copy of computerized pay bills of the following GDS staff.
Ex.A21- 27.4.2013 – Copy of letter of the address to the complainant.
Ex.A22- 27.4.2013 – Copy of specimen signature of K.Sree Shashank.
Ex.A23- - - Copy of Postal envelop booked on 15.10.12 of Speed post
To the addressee by the complainant obtained from him.
Ex.A24- 25.4.2013 - Copy of letter of the complainant addressed to the opposite
Party-3.
Ex.A25- 15.8.2009 - Copy of Press release in The Hindu daily
Ex.A26- 17.12.2012- Copy of Speed post article to opposite party-2.
Ex.A27 19.12.2012 - Copy of bills for expenditure.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- .. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
