DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.20/2010
Sh. Sanjib Kumar Khandayat Ray
Lane No.4, Wazirabad Village
P.S. Timarpur, Delhi-110054
Office at:
142, New Lawyers Chamber,
M.C. Shetalvad Block, Supreme Court
of India, New Delhi-110001 ….Complainant
Versus
1. General Manager
Speed Post Department of Post
Gol Dak Khana, New Delhi-110001
2. The Manager, Speed Post Centre,
New Delhi, Bhai Vir Singh Marg,
P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi-110001
3. Sh. Dev Kishan, Supervisor,
Customer Care Division,
Speed Post Centre, New Delhi
Bhai Vir Singh Marg,
P.S. Mandir Marg,
New Delhi-110001 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 11.01.10 Date of Order : 27.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant appeared in an interview held by the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi for the post of Astt. Legal Advisor, Department of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; that some of the original certificates had to be verified after the interview and the complainant was not in possession of the same; that the brother of the complainant Sh. Chiranjib Khandyat Ray sent some original certificates through Speed Post on 23.12.2009 vide Speed Post Docket No. EO-873748153IN through the post office at Railway Mail Service (RMS) Cuttack City, Orissa; that the Speed Post organization claims/advertises to deliver the posts within 48 hours anywhere in India for which it charges some extra fees and the OP No.3 i.e. Speed Post Centre at New Delhi-110001 takes the responsibility to deliver the posts coming to NCT of Delhi in time; that when the complainant did not receive the mail despite lapse of 5 days, he went to the Speed Post Centre, New Delhi on 28.12.09 but the reception clerk could not find out the mail and asked to meet the Supervisor Sh. Devikishan but, however, he replied not to disturb him and did not listen to him. Complainant contacted the booking post office at R.M.S. Cuttak over phone and he was informed that the document has been delivered at New Delhi Centre. Thereafter, he visited the Speed Post Centre, New Delhi on 30.12.2009, met the Manager on 31.12.2009 but in vain but he was told that the said mail had been sent to Krishna Nagar Head Post office for delivery on 27.12.2009 though this post office was not the delivery post office for the Supreme Court area in which the office address of the complainant is situated. On the same day i.e. on 31st December, 2009 the complainant went to the Krishna Nagar Post Office which is at a distance of 20-22 km. from the Speed Post Centre, New Delhi-110001, met the Post Master and Delivery Staff but the computers there could not trace the document. He went to Speed Post Centre New Delhi on 01.01.2010 but in vain. Complainant downloaded from the internet the tracking report which confirmed that the said document had been sent to Krishan Nagar, Head Post Office on 27.12.2009 at about 8 a.m. On 01.12.2009 the complainant went to the Krishan Nagar, Head Post Office and met one Mr. Kailashji but he replied that the bag has not yet been opened and will try to trace it only after it is opened. As per Annexure-2 i.e. the internet report downloaded on 01.01.2010 and 06.01.2010 it showed that the Article was bagged but not yet delivered even after lapse of 17 days from its booking. The speed post organization failed to deliver the document of the complainant in time despite making a complaint due to which the complainant lost a job because of the fact that he could not produce the original document to the UPSC. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs the complainant has filed the complaint for directing the OPs to deliver the document/mail to the complainant as soon as possible, to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for committing deficiency in service.
OPs in their written statement have inter-alia stated that as per section 6 of the Indian Postal Act it has been clearly stipulated that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage of any postal article in the transmission by post except insofar as liability accepted by the Government. As per GSR 40 (E) it has been clearly stated that “ in case of delay in delivery of domestic Speed Post Articles beyond the norms determined by the department of Posts from time to time, the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid and in the event of loss of domestic Speed Post Article or loss of its contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. It is admitted that Speed Post Article in question was booked at Cuttack on 23.12.2009 but the contents of the article were not declared at the time of booking and the article was not got insured for any value; that the copy of the booking slip annexed as P1 in the complaint is incomplete i.e. not having the address of the addressee or the sender. The delivery norms for national/state speed post centres is 1-3 days. Speed Post Centre, New Delhi deals with the disposal of SP Mails booked at Delhi/New Delhi deliverable throughout India. It also deals with the mails received from all over India for delivery at Delhi/New Delhi. It is submitted that as there was incomplete status of the article (in question) on the website, the complainant was asked to give the complaint with complete details and wait for the reply. It is submitted that the status of the article as dispatched to Krishna Nagar HPO, Delhi for delivery was intimated to the complainant on his very first visit. It is submitted that the complainant has no documentary evidence that the article was actually addressed for Supreme Court, New Delhi. It is submitted that as per website report the article was dispatched to Krishna Nagar HPO on 27.12.2009 and, hence, he was asked that if at all the article is addressed for Supreme Court of India it will be delivered to him after its receipt from the said delivery Post Office as undelivered. The article was never received back as undelivered from Krishna Nagar HPO. It is submitted that the article was never addressed for Supreme Court of India, New Delhi as it was dispatched to Krishna Nagar HPO on 27.12.2009 for delivery and was not received back as un-delivered. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. It is stated as follows:-
“2 ….after the complaint was filed and before the filing of the written submissions by the respondents, the office of the Senior Superintendent of R.M.S. “N" Division in Cuttack had sent a registered letter dated 5th February 2010 to the Manager, Speed Post Centre, Delhi SPC, New Delhi 110001, with the copies thereof forwarded to the different postal and speed post authorities and sending the copy thereof to the sender of the article, mentioning therein, the detail address of the sender as well as the addressee, to take immediate steps to ensure the delivery there of at the correct address, which was tracked to another post office beyond the limits of the delivery post office. The copy of the letter dated 5.12.2010 and the registered postal envelop bearing no. 5801 dated 5.2.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4 (Colly)….”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Parmatma Sharma, Superintendent has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the OP. None appeared on behalf of the Complainant to advance oral arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
The short question which arises for consideration and decision by this Forum is, whether the brother of the complainant had infact sent some original document to the complainant at his office address i.e. 142, New Lawyers Chamber, M. C. Setalvad Block, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. In order to prove that his brother had infact sent the original document including his LL.B degree to the complainant, the complainant ought to have filed the affidavit of his brother who was the best person to depose whether he had infact sent the original document/s to the complainant at his office address or at some other address but, however, the complainant has not filed his brother’s affidavit and, thus, has withheld an important piece of evidence from the Forum. Ex. A is the copy of one incomplete document. The complainant ought to have filed the full photocopy of the document. The document Ex.-C shows that the article had been sent from New Delhi Post Office to Krishna Nagar Post Office on 27.12.2009. Much reliance has been placed on behalf of the complainant on the copy of a letter Ex.-D issued from the office of Sr. Superintendent, R.M.S “N” Division, Cuttack addressed to the Manager, Delhi SPC, New Delhi-110001 on the subject “Non responding of Outward Complaint No.753100-00410- Regarding Non delivery of Speed Post Article No. EO873748153IN dated 23.12.2009 booked at Cuttack RMS addressing Sanjeeb Ku Khandayat Ray, Chamber No.142, MC Sheetalbad block, New Lawyers Chamber, opp To Supreme Court, New Delhi-110001 booked by Chiranjib Khandayat Ray, Niladribihar, Nayabazar, Cuttack-753004.” In our considered opinion “subject” must have been written on the basis of some complaint received regarding non-delivery of Speed Post article in question and the same had been reproduced in the letter (copy Ex.D). Therefore, from the said document it does not stand proved beyond suspicion that the article had infact been booked at the office address of the complainant. The complainant could have easily filed the copy of original Speed Post receipt to prove that the article in question had been sent at his office address and not at some other address. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the article in question contained his original LL.B degree and/or original document and that the same was addressed to him at his office address. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 27.07.17.
