Karnataka

Kolar

CC/51/2016

Narasimha Murthy.H.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.Narasimha Murthy - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19/08/2016

Date of Order: 22/08/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 22^nd DAY OF AUGUST 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 51 OF 2016

Sri.Narasimha Murthy.H.N,

S/o. Narasimhappa,

Honappanahalli, Varavani Post,

Manchenahalli Hobli,

Gauribidanur Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.
(In-person)                                                                         ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) Sri. Narasimha Murthy,

Post Master, Manchenahalli

Sub-Post Office, Gauribidanur

Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. P.N.Krishna Reddy, Advocate)

 

2) Sri.Siddappa, Post Master,

Varavani Sub-Post Office,

Gauribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. P.N.Krishna Reddy, Advocate)

 

3) The Post Master, Main Post Office,

Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore

Rural District.

(In-person)

 

4) Shri Sundara, P.S.I, (law and Order),

Office of the Police Inspector,

Chintamani Town Police Station, Chintamani.

(In-person)

 

5) Sri. Ramanjanappa,

Sub Post Master, Post Office,

Manchenahalli, Gouribidanur Taluk,

Chikkaballapur District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. P.N.Krishna Reddy, Advocate)      …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter refereed in short as “the Act”) seeking directions against the OP Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to provide original acknowledgement received and duly signed by OP No.4 and to pay Rs.4,95,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and his family and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is the contention of the complainant that, on 27.06.2016 when OP No.4 i.e., Mr. Sundara, PSI., while he was working at Manchenahalli Police Station, he was sent an article through RPAD bearing No. RK353103281N at OP No.3 post Office by paying Rs.40/- to avail the postal payable service. 

 

(b)    Further the complainant submits that, the said article might have delivered to OP No.4 had made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapur District, against the OP No.4 about non-registration of FIR on his complaint dated: 27.06.2016 made to the OP No.4.

 

(c)    On 19.07.2016 OP No.4 called over his personal mobile phone No.9480802549 and threatened to register a criminal case against him and imposed life threat on fake and colluded grounds as the said article sent by the complainant through RPAD was not at all delivered to OP No.4. 

(d)    On the very same day complainant verified the status of delivery of the said article through internet tracking details, wherein which, he found that, the aforesaid article was not delivered to addressee due to door lock of the police station.  On the very same day complainant made online complaint bearing No.10007073059 about non-delivery of the said article.  And the status of the complaint shows that, the aforesaid article was received at Manchenahalli on 06.07.2016 and delivered on 12.07.2016. 

 

(e)    Therefore on 20.07.2016 complainant made a complaint bearing No.561203-0014 to the OP No.3 i.e., the Post Master, Doddaballapura Main Post Office about non-delivery of the article bearing No.ARK3531033281N sent to the OP No.4.  The OP No.3 on 23.07.2016 has given reply letter stating that, the article was delivered on 12.07.2016. 

 

(f) But till date complainant has not received the acknowledgement slip which was annexed to the article bearing No.ARK3531033281N which is duly signed by the OP No.4.  And due to the deficiency in service and negligent act of OP Nos.1 to 3 & 5 the complainant suffered lot of irreparable loss and mental agony.  Hence this complaint. 

 

(g)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following Xerox copies of the documents:-

(i) Receipt bearing No.RK3531033821N

(ii) Track events about non-delivery of article

(iii) Status of online complaint bearing No.10007073059

(iv) Complaint given to OP No.3

(v) Reply letter given by OP No.3

03.   In response to the notice served, OP Nos.1 & 2 put their appearance through their learned counsel and submitted the version of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kolar, on behalf of OP Nos.1 & 2.  However on 02.12.2016 the learned counsel appearing for OP No.5 appeared and submitted a Memo stating that, OP No.5 adopts the version filed by the OP Nos.1 & 2.  However OP Nos.3 and 4 appeared in-person and filed their respective versions.

 

04.   In brief the contention raised in the version filed by the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1, 2 and 5 are:-

 

(a)    The OP No.1 as mentioned in the above complaint is not working in Manchenahalli S O during the alleged period and at that point of time, one Sri. Ramanjinappa was working as Sub Post Master at Manchenalli Sub Post Office.  It is true that the complainant has booked registered letter with acknowledgment at Doddaballapur Post Office, addressed to Sri. Sundar P.S.I. Manchenahalli Police Station in No.RK3531033281N by paying Rs.40/- towards postage charges. 

 

(b)    Further OP Nos.1, 2 & 5 contends that, the allegations made at Para-8 & 9 are not within the knowledge of these Ops.  The said article was received at Manchenahalli S.O. on 29.06.2016 and the same was issued to concerned beat postman and sent for delivery.  As article was addressed in the personal name of Mr. Sundara, at the time of delivery of the article at police station, Mr.Sundara was absent and the postman with the remarks as ‘absent’ returned by intimating at office of Manchenahalli Police Station regarding the receipt of registered letter for delivery.  Since the particular remark party was absent intimation regarding delivery is not available in the system and the Sub Postmaster, Manchenahalli S.O. has shown the remarks as ‘Door Locked/Intimation delivered’ and as the addressee failed to claim the article within seven days the article was returned to the sender i.e., to the complainant on 05.07.2016 and it reached Varavani Branch Office on 06.07.2016 and the Branch Post Master has taken the article for delivery to complainant whose residential address is given as Honnappanahalli.  Wherein which he learnt that, the sender/complainant is staying at Doddaballapura and the Branch Post Master has taken complainant’s Phone number and informed him over phone regarding un-delivery of the article and the complainant has replied that, he will come and take the same. 

 

(c)    Further contention raised by OP Nos.1, 2 & 5 is that, the Branch Post Master whenever receives the articles which is addressed to complainant, in good faith he used to inform the same over phone to the complainant and keep the article until the complainant comes to the village.  The Branch Post Master in good faith has kept the article with him and uploaded that, the said article was delivered to the sender on 12.07.2016. 

 

(d)    Further OP Nos.1, 2 & 5 contends that, the article was not delivered to the addressee as OP No.4 was absent on the day when it was taken for delivery and an intimation was issued in the police station and within 7 days OP No.4 failed to collect the same and on all the days of beat time the addressee was absent, hence the article was returned to the sender.  And according to Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the department is exempted from the liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.  The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central government.  Thus there is no negligence and no deficiency on the part of OP Nos.1, 2 & 5.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

 

05.   OP No.4 appeared in-person and not filed version and affidavit.  One Sri. Ramesh Babu, Post Master appeared for OP No.3 and filed version and documents as mentioned below:-

(a)    In the version OP No.3 contends that, a registered letter with No. RK353103328IN was booked at Doddaballapura Post Office Under Channapatna Division of Karnataka Postal Circle on 27.06.2016.  The registered letter was addressed to the Sundara, PSI, Manchenahalli Police Station, Manchenahalli-561211 coming under Kolar Division.  The article was booked on 27.06.2016 at Doddaballapura Post Office and dispatched on the same day to Bangalore City RMS for onward transmission of the article to the destination and there was no delay in processing the article at Doddaballapura SO. 

 

06.   On behalf of OP Nos. 1, 2 & 5 the learned counsel submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Attested copy of delivery slip of Manchenahalli B.O. dated: 29.06.2016, 30.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 02.07.2016, 04.07.2016 and 05.07.2016.

(ii) Attested copy of enquiry particulars

(iii) Xerox copy of undelivered article.

(iv) Delivery slip of Varavani B.O.

(v) Copy of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

 

07.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and on behalf of OP Nos.1, 2 & 5 Sri. K.Muniramaiah, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kolar, has sworn and submitted affidavit evidence.

 

08.   The complainant and the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1, 2 & 5 have submitted written arguments respectively.

 

09.   Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and that of the learned counsel appearing for the OP Nos.1, 2 & 5.

 

10.   Therefore the only point that does arise for our consideration in this case is:-

     “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

 

11.   Finding of this District Forum on the above stated Point is in the “Negative” for the following:-

 

REASONS

12.   The complainant has specifically pleaded against OP No.4 as on 19.07.2016 OP No.4 had called to him through his official phone No.9480802549, threatened him to register a criminal case and imposed life threat on fake and colluded grounds.  Because of the complaint sent by him on 27.06.2016 was not delivered to OP No.4.

 

13.   And with regard to OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 no doubt the complaint will become Consumer as per Section. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Forum has jurisdiction to try the present complaint against OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5, but lacks jurisdiction against Op No.4.  Because the complainant has come up with intermingled causes.  Such as OP No.4 has threatened him to register a fake criminal case by colluding with other Ops etc., as aforesaid.

 

14.   By simply pleading and giving bald evidence the complainant cannot afford to press in to service that, this Forum should presume commission of such criminal offences and draw inference with regard to contended deficiency in service of OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5.  We cannot separate intermingled causes and decide.  We are legally prevented from probing in to this aspect, for, it requires detailed probe of evidence.  None of the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986 would permit us to probe in to threaten, fake criminal offences.  Hence this Forum lacks jurisdiction.  Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For forgoing reasons the present complaint stands dismissed with no costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 22^nd DAY OF AUGUST 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT