Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/14/2006

Davuri Sudha Jaya Prakash Babu. - Complainant(s)

Versus

St Thomas Mount Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

S.Baskaran

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.09.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.14/2006

THURSDAY THIS  16^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

Davuri Sudha Jaya Prakash Babu,

Rep. by Natual Guardian (Mother),

Mrs.R.Durgamba F/45,

GA, Viswamelu Towers,

33, Chitlapakkam Main Road,

Nehru Nagar, Chrompet,

Chennai 600 044.                                               .. Complainant.

 

                        ..Vs..

1. The Post Master – Speed Post,

St. Thomas Mount Post Office,

Chennai 600 016.

 

2. The Manager,

Speed Post Business office,

Greams Road, Post Office Building,

Chennai 600 006.

 

3. The Chief Post Master General,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                                       ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. S. Baskaran    

Counsel for the opposite parties      : M/s. M.Praveen Kumar

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.96,000/- towards additional and extra cost spent out by the complainant for getting her son’s admission with interest and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint are brief as follows:

       The complainant’s son D.S.Jayaprakash babu aged 17 years has applied for B.A. LLB (Hons) Course and was a successful candidate on the admission test held on 30.1.2005 the entrance examination of which was taken up by her son in Loyala college, which was the venue for the Chennai centre.   Her son was selected in the schedule caste category holded 6^th rank with 82 marks obtained having the roil number as 33046 issued by the NUJS University, Kolkota.  

2.     That NUJS University, Kolkota has sent the communication letter dated 15.3.2005 that my son has been provisionally selected for the admission of B.A. LL.A (Hons) Course in the S.C. Category, the course of which is to be started in the month of June 2005 and also further submitted that the admission has to be confirmed by depositing the fees of Rs.64,000/- in favour of WBNUJS Students fee A/c. payable at Koklota with the requisite educational qualification certificates to be reached to Registrar NUJS University, Kolkota on or before Tuesday 15^th April 2005.   

3.     The D.D which was sent by the speed post which was booked at Chennai St.Thomas Mount, has reached the Kolkota Airport SPCC office at 23.55 :38 P.M dated 13.4.2005 and been sent to the B.N.CC Block P.O. which can be very clearly seen from the tracking movement sheet issued by the Indian Postal Service, which has been submitted for ready reference, and it can also been seen from the tracking movement sheet that there was no movement details of the speed post parcel after 13.4.2005 and further only on 18.4.2005 the parcel has been moved from B.N. CC block PO to NUJS University, Kolkota address, with the remark article delivered.

4.     That NUJS university Kolkota sent back the D.D. sent by her son towards the deposition of fees for admission towards L.L.B course for the year 2005 dated 28.4.2005 stating that the D.D was received by the University on 18.4.2005 which was after the due date i.e. 16.5.2005 and hence the D.D. could not be accepted by the University authority.    All the efforts taken for the admission of her son with NUJS university, Kolkota has ended up in vain and because of the postal department delay of one day should not ruin the life of her son as if could be understandable with how great difficulty an admission to law degree course would have been obtained and being a middle class family, with great difficulty the amount towards admission fees was procured. 

5.        It is because of the deficiency on the part of Postal department the complainant was made to suffer a lot, and in the welfare of her son an in the fear of losing a year, the complainant after taking the legal advice   all the efforts taken by the complainant  was put in vain.   Then somehow with great difficulty got her son admitted in the Nalsar University Hyderabad and the same was intimated to her advocate at Kolkota and immediately got return back to Chennai by Chennai express on 30.6.2005 by struggling herself by all means.  

6.     The complainant states that only at the instance of deficiency and inefficient service on the part of the postal authorities, she was made to suffer running round the clock nearly for one month in the interest and welfare of her son’s future life and prospects and all happened just because of the delay caused by the postal authorities.  Hence the complaint.

7. Written Version of  opposite party is  in brief as follows:

           The opposite parties deny all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein.    It is true that the complaint the complainant had booked a speed post article No.EE447240486IN on 13.4.2005 at SPCC, Chennai 16 at NUJS University, Kolkata but the contents of the speed post article are not known to the department.

8.     It is true that the article has not been delivered due to holidays Saturday and Sunday from 14.4.2005 to 17.4.2005.  It was intimated to the complainant in letter No.SP/3/C-1/Kol/72/05 dated 23.4.2005 sent by SPBO, Chennai that on enquiry over phone from SPCC Kolkata it was ascertained that the University observed Holiday on Saturday, the 16^th April 2005 and the same was communicated to the complainant.  The article was delivered on 18.4.2005 due to Postal holidays on 14.4.2005 and 15.4.2005 University not functioning on 16.4.2005 and Sunday on 17.4.2005.  There was  no willful delay or negligence in delivery of the article by Postal Department.

9.     There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department.  The addressees office was closed on 16.4.2005 the last day fixed for receipt of communications.   The non delivery of the article atleast on 16.4.2005 is due to the closure of the university office.    It is further submitted that the speed post article No.EE447240486IN was booked at SPCC, Chennai 600 016 on 13.4.2005 at 0903 hrs and dispatched to Koklata on the same day enclosed in the Bag No.EB087827.   Compliant about non delivery of the articles was received over phone on 20.4.2005 and prompt action was taken to ascertain and intimate the date of delivery of the article and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3  marked on the side of the opposite parties.

11.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

12. Point No.1:-

Regarding this point, the foremost duty of the forum is to consider as to whether the complainant has proved the allegation made in the complaint by means of consistent and relevant evidence which is the bounden duty of him.   First of all on perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is learnt that on getting admission for  B.A. L.L.B (Hons) course in NUJS Unniversity, Kolkota, the complainant’s son sent D.D. for Rs.64,000/- in favour of the WBNUJS STUDENTS FEE Account dated 12.4.2005 and sent it through speed post on 13.4.2005 booked St. Thomas Mount Branch, Chennai-16 by paying the requisite fees of Rs.60/-.   The admission selection letter is marked as Ex.A1.  The D.D. of Rs.64,000/- drawn on  Andhra Bank, Chennai which is marked as Ex.A2.  It is further stated  by the complainant that the said speed post containing in the D.D. was only delivered on 18.4.2005 to NUJS, Kolkatta address, the proof of delivery is marked as Ex.A3.

13.    It is further stated by the complainant that the NUJS University Kolkotta sent back the D.D. sent by her son towards the deposition of fees for admission towards L.L.B course by  stating that the said D.D. was received after the due date and hence the D.D could not be accepted by the University authority which is marked as Ex.A4.  In this connection regarding  booking of the said speed post and the transmission to the Kolkotta tracking movement sheet has been issued by the Indian Postal authority is marked as Ex.A5 and the letter from the opposite party-2 is marked as Ex.A6.  Thereafter the complainant wrote a letter Ex.A7 to the Registrar, NUJS University,  Kolkata to accept the D.D and offer admission along with the medical prescription,  the medical prescription is marked as Ex.A8.  Then on refusal of the request of the complainant the complainant filed writ petition before the Kolkata High Court in W.P. No.11717  of 2005 is marked as Ex.A9 and the documents pertaining to stay of the complainant at Kolkata on 14.6.2005 and 17.6.2005 are marked as Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 and the air tickets dated 8.6.2005 is marked as Ex.12 and Ex.A14, the receipt issued by the Railway, Kolkata  and the travel by train on different dates series and the communication, telephone bills which are marked as Ex.A13,Ex.A16 and Ex.A17 respectively.  The receipt issued by the NALSAR University is marked as Ex.A15.  It is further stated that since because of delay in delivering the speed post containing the D.D. towards the fees for admission towards L.L.B the life of her son has been put to question as he has not applied for any other course in any of the university of the period of one year academic waste of the questioned which caused mental agony and hardship

14.    On the other hand, on going through the evidence of the opposite parties it is learnt that due to holidays Saturday and Sunday from 14.4.2005 to 17.4.2005.  The article was delivered on 18.4.2005 in which 14.4.2005 & 15.4.2005 is the postal holidays and 16.4.2005 & 17.4.2005 the University is not functioning and thereby there was no willful delay or negligence in delivery of the article by Postal Department.   In this connection Ex.B3 letter sent to the complainant along with Ex.B2  Tracking movement, Ex.B1 is the speed post manifest and therefore there is no deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite parties.

15.    At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submission put forth on either side it is not disputed that the delivery of the speed post booked by the complainant which is contains D.D. towards deposit of fee for the L.L.B. course of her son on getting admission in the NUJS University, Kolkatta was delivered on 18.4.2005 i.e. on the expiry of the last date for admission.  Further it is an admitted case that the cause of delay delivery of  speed post the same has been returned by the concerned university and not accepted the D.D. towards the admission.   In such circumstances it is pertinent to note that it is categorically admitted by the complainant that the communication letter dated 15.3.2005 has been received from NUJS, Kolkatta by the complainant with condition that the admission has been confirmed by depositing the fee of Rs.64,000/- in favour of WBNUJS STUDENTS FEE A/C payable at Kolkatta with copies of certificates to reach the Registrar, WBNUJS University, on or before 15.4.2005.  So it is clear that there is a gap of nearly one month for making arrangement to pay the above said fee.  If the complainant was really interested in the future welfare of her son, she ought to have taken steps some time earlier and they avoid the delay.    But the complainant has taken her own time and in the last hour i.e. at the fake end of the period, the complainant taken D.D. which was sent by speed post and the same was booked by St. Thomas on 13.5.2005 only. 

16.      Such being so, this forum has to consider whether the delayed delivery of the speed post is intentionally  or wantonly by the Postal authority.  Regarding this aspect, on careful perusal of the averments made in the written version as well as in the proof affidavit, it is crystal clear that when the speed post article was booked on 13.4.2005 and reached the office on 14.4.2005 and thereafter 14.4.2005 & 15.4.2005 are postal holidays and the University is not functioning on 16.4.2005 and 17.4.2005 being Saturday and Sunday and therefore the article delivered on 18.4.2005.  The above said fact has been proved through Ex.B1 & Ex.B3 and therefore there was no willful delay or negligence in delivery of the article by Postal authority.  Unless or otherwise there is no willful delay or negligence  in service of the postal authority it could not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

17.    Moreover, it is brought to the knowledge of this forum that the complainant had got admission for L.L.B course in the same academic year in the Andhara University and on that score, the writ petition filed by the complainant has been withdrawn and therefore there is no loss of academic  year as alleged by the complainant.   In such a way also, there is no hardship caused to the complainant and no loss by not joining in NUJS University Kolkatta.  

18.     In the light of above facts and circumstances and observations made above, the complainant has not proved any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  by means of relevant and consistent evidence.  Hence this forum, can easily come to the conclusion without any hesitation that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.  

19. POINT No.2:-

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  16^th  day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  15.3.2005 - Copy of admission selection letter from NUJS Kolkatta.

Ex.A2- 12.4.2005  - Copy of D.D. drawn on Andhra Bank for Rs.64,000/-

Ex.A3- 18.4.2005  - Copy of proof of delivery.

Ex.A4- 28.4.2005  - Copy of letter from NUJS for non acceptance of D.D.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Tracking Movement sheet issued by Indian Post.

Ex.A6- 23.4.2005  - Copy of letter from the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A7- 21.4.2005  - Copy of request letter from the complainant to NUJS

                               Kolkatta.

Ex.A8- 18.5.2005  - Copy of medical prescription.

Ex.A9- 20.6.2005  - Copy  of writ petition No.11717/05

Ex.A10- 14.6.2005         - Copy of stay at Hotel Neeranand-Kolkatta from 8.6.05

                               to 14.6.05.

Ex.A11- 17.6.2005         - Copy of stay at Hotel Neeranand-Kolkatta from 14.6.05 to

                              17.6.2005.

Ex.A12- 8.6.2005  - Copy of Air ticket from Chennai to Kolkatta.

 

Ex.A13- 27.6.2005         - Copy of receipt issued by Railway-Kolkatta.

Ex.A14- 29.6.2005         - Copy of Air ticker form Kolkatta to Hydrabad

Ex.A15- 29.6.2005         - Copy of receipt issued by NALSAR University.

Ex.A16-        -      - Copy of Travel by train on different dates series.

Ex.A17-       -       - Copy of Communication-Telephone bills.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   

Ex.B1-  13.4.2005 - Copy of Speed post Manifest.

Ex.B2- 13.4.2005  - Copy of tracking Movement.

Ex.B3- 23.4.2005  - Copy of letter sent to complainant.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.