IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
Dated this the 1st Day of April 2019
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, BSc,LL.B, Member
CC No.104/16
N.Viswambharan : Complainant
Viswavihar,U.P.S Jn.
Edamon P.O, Punalur
V/s
- Sub Postmaster : Opposite parties
Edamon-691307.
- Postmaster
Punalur-691305.
- The SPO’s
Pathanamthitta D.N
Pathanamthitta-689645.
- Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle,TVM-695033
FAIR ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows. On 20.11.14 the complainant sent a registered letter addressed to CPIO, Office of the Labour Commissioner, Office at Punalur,P.O(Civil station) 6911305 under Registration No.RL 274012783. The letter was re-directed to Kollam by the post office and the same was returned back from the office of the Labour Commissioner, Civil station. Instead of delivering the letter to the correct addressee the same was delivered to Regional Joint Labour Commissioners Office, Kollam. The letter was returned to the complainant under D3057/14 dated 12.12.14 under RC No.282/99705 dated 12.12.14. The complainant filed grievance petition to the Post master, Post office Edamon on the next day. But no action was taken by the Postal Department.
2
The complainant again sent another registered letter under RL 318046125 in dated 27.10.15, to the TECHNO KART INDIA Ltd, TKIL Punalur, KP Road,(TB Jn) Punalur-691305. The letter was given to Valacode P.O by HP Punalur. But the letter was sent back to sender with remarks ‘Not known at Valacode, returned the sender 28.10’. The complainant again registered another grievance petition at the post office, Edamon on 31.10.15 regarding non service of the above letter. He has also sent a registered complaint to the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle,Thiruvananthapuram on 02.11.15. The PMG forwarded his complaint to the Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta. However the Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta has not taken any action till 17.02.16. Hence he sent notice to C.P.G, Keral circle on 18.02.16. The above notice was directed to SPO’s vide letter No.CP7/32/2/2016 dated 09.03.16. But no action was taken by the Postal Department till date. The act of the opposite parties caused heavy loss and injury to the consumer and the same amounts to dereliction of duty, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant further prays to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and also take departmental action deemed fit to the defaulters also award reasonable costs.
The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing a detailed written version raising the following contentions.
All the averments and allegation in the complaint are denied except to the extent admitted. The opposite parties would admit that a registered letter bearing No.RL274012783IN was booked at Edamon P.O 691307 on 20.11.2014 addressed to CPIO, Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner Office, Punalur(Civil Station)691305 by the petitioner. The said registered letter was received at Punalur P.O 691305 for delivery on 21.11.2014 and was sent for delivery on the same day itself. Deputy Labour Officer at Civil Station, Punalur did not accept the letter since the designation of the CPIO is Deputy Labour
3
Officer, and the letter was addressed to “Deputy Labour Commissioner”. Hence the letter was redirected as per the information from the Deputy Labour Officer at Punalur Mini Civil Station to Labour Commissioner Office, Kollam Cutchery P.O in good faith and was delivered to the CPIO, Office of the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam Cutchery P.O, Pin.691013 on 22.11.2014. The complainant’s allegation is that the letter was returned from Labour Commissioner’s Office Civil Station, Kollam, is not true, but the letter was delivered to Regional Joint Labour Commissioner at Kollam, Pin.691013.
There is no such addressee named Deputy Labour Commissioner at Punalur Mini Civil Station, but what is situated at Punalur Mini Civil station is Labour Office. Since the letter was addressed to Deputy Labour commissioner, the letter was not accepted by the Labour Officer at Punalur and as per their instruction, the letter was redirected to the Labour Commissioner’s Office at Kollam Cutchery P.O to effect delivery to the correct addressee. Moreover, the letter was received by the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner’s Office at Kollam, Cutchery P.O. The Regional Joint Labour Commissioner gave reply to the complainant in respect of what he had sought through the registered letter under complaint. It is also submitted that the address furnished by the complainant was incorrect and the postal staff only made sincere efforts to deliver the article to the correct addressee, to help the complainant.
The opposite parties would also admit that a registered letter was booked by the complainant under No.RL318046125IN at Edamon P.O on 27.10.2015 addressed to the TECHNO KART INDIA Ltd. TKIL Punalur, KP road, TB Jn, Punalur 691305. The letter was received at Punalur P.O,691305 on 28.10.2015 and was redirected to Valacode Sub Post Office Pin.691331 on the same day itself as KP Road and TB Junction, Punalur come under the delivery jurisdiction of Valacode P.O.691331. The letter was received at Valacode P.O on 29.10.15. Since the delivery staff could not locate such an addressee in the
4
given address, the letter was returned to the petitioner with remark ‘ Not known’. On enquiry, it could be found that there is no such firm named ‘Technokart’. But a firm named ‘NEXT’ functioned in TB Junction and some of the articles received in the name of ‘NEXT’ were found to carry sometimes the name ‘TECHNOKART’ also in the address portion later(after return of the article sent by the petitioner) but the name board exhibited doesn’t carry the name ‘TECHNOKART’ still. The petitioner had furnished incorrect address and there is no fault on the part of the delivery staff as there was no indication on the address furnished on the letter sent by the petitioner to show that ‘TECHNOKART’ functioned officially or unofficially with ‘NEXT’ and the letter was not returned intentionally. Moreover the name of delivery Post Office furnished by the complainant was also wrong.
Under section 6 of the Indian Post Office act 1898, the government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of 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 as herein after provided, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. The immunity under Section 6 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V/s Moh’d Nazim AIR 1980 SC 431 and various land mark decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission. In both the cases there is no wilful or fraudulent act or default of the Postal Staff and there is no deficiency in service also. In both the cases the deficiency was actually on the part of the complainant. Complainant being the sender of the articles was supposed to know the correct and complete address of the addressees and furnish the same on the articles to ensure its correct and prompt delivery. Here, as stated by the complainant himself the article was addressed to CPIO, Office of the Labour Commissioner
5
Punalur P.O. There is no Labour Commissioner posted at Punalur and the complainant failed to furnish the correct designation and address of the CPIO. What he meant was CPIO of Punalur, the address should be furnished as the Office of the Deputy Labour Officer and not Labour Commissioner and if what he meant was Office of the Labour Commissioner, the name of delivery Post Office ought to have been furnished was not Punalur but Kollam Cutchery Pin.691013. In the second case also the name of the Post Office furnished was wrong. The locality namely KP Road, TB Junction etc. are not under the delivery jurisdiction of Punalur Head Post Office, but under Valacode P.O. Further Valacode P.O couldn’t also effect delivery of the article as the name of the firm ie, TECHNOKART which was not known to the Post Office or its delivery staff, as there was no indication/sign board of the firm available anywhere and no information on the existence of such a firm communicated to Valacode Post Office. The opposite parties further to dismiss the complaint with costs .
The points that arise for consideration are:-
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs sought for?
3.Reliefs and costs.
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P13 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1 to DW3, Ext.D1 & D2 documents.
Both sides have filed notes of arguments. Heard both sides.
Point No.1&2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that two registered letters sent by him was not properly served to the addressees. According to the
6
complainant the 1st letter (Ext.P1) instead of delivering the same to the correct addresse the same was delivered to another official and the 2nd letter(Ext.P4) was returned to the complainant with an endorsement ‘addressee not known’. Inspite of sending grievance petitions to the postal authorities no action was taken by the Postal Department. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties caused heavy loss and injury to the complainant and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence he seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.15000/- and also seeks to direct postal authorities to take departmental action against delinquent employees. The opposite parties resisted the complaint. According to them the two registered letters sent by the complainant was not in proper address and hence Ext.P1 was redirected and Ext.P4 letter was returned stating ‘addressee not known’. To substantiate the case the complainant relies on the evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P13 documents. It is true that the complainant has been examined as PW1 and PW1 has reiterated his case in the proof affidavit. It is an admitted case that the 1st Registered letter Ext.P1 is addressed to the Deputy Labour Commissioner Office at Punalur P.O, Civil Station- 691305. It is interesting to note that the designation of the addressee and the name of the civil station shown in the address is incorrect. However the postal authorities have shown earnest effort in serving the same. It is clear from the available materials that on 20.11.14 the above letter was booked at Edamon Post Office and the said letter was received at the Punalur P.O for delivery on 21.11.14 which is on the very next day and was sent for delivery on the same day itself. But the Office of the Deputy Labour Officer alone is functioning at Punalur did not accept the letter since his designation was Deputy Labour Officer and not Deputy Labour Commissioner. As the designation of the addressee is wrong the letter was redirected as per the information furnished by the Deputy Labour Officer Punalur to the Labour Commissioner’s Office is at Kollam and hence the same
7
was redirected to Kollam and delivered to Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam on 22.11.14.
It is clear from the available materials that the allegation of the complainant that Ext.P1 letter was returned from the Labour Commissioner’s Office , Civil Station, Kollam is incorrect. The letter was actually delivered to Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam and after receiving the letter the said joint Labour Commissioner gave reply to the complainant regarding his request in the said letter. It is clear from the available materials that there is no such addressee by name Deputy Labour Commissioner, Punalur at the Civil Station, Punalur. What is functioning at Punlaur Mini Civil Station is not Deputy Labour Commissioner’s Office but only Deputy Labour Office. It is also clear from the available materials that as the letter was addressed to a higher official like Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Deputy Labour Office, Punalur has not accepted the same. It is also brought out in evidence that Joint Labour Commissioner, Kollam has accepted the letter and gave reply to the complainant in respect of what he has sought through the registered letter.
It is also clear from the available materials that address stated on the face of Ext.P1 registered letter sent by the complainant is incorrect. Even then the Postal Staff made sincere efforts to deliver the article to the addressee. There is no wilful or fraudulent act on the part of the Postal department or staffs so as to blame them or to infer any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties rather there is negligence on the part of the complainant in stating the correct address of the official who is expected to receive the letter.
The complainant has argued that if the address is wrong the letter ought have been returned to the sender instead of serving the same to a wrong person which is a major and severe deficiency in service. As far as the 1st registered letter is concerned the complainant has argued that there is no provisions to serve a registered letter to 3rd party. As far as this case is concerned we find no
8
force in the above argument. Ext.P1 is the cover by which the complainant has send the registered letter. The address shown in the cover is to “The CPLO,O/o Dy Labour Commissioner’s Office, Punalur P.O(Civil Station)-691305”. It is seen that the place Punalur has been corrected as Kollam by the postal authorities and served the letter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam. It is clear from the available materials that by seeing the address the postal authorities were under the bonafide impression that the recipient of the registered letter might be the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam and hence they bonafidely served the registered article at Kollam from which no malafides in serving the letter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam can be inferred especially when the recipient of the letter in the address portion is written as Deputy Labour Commissioner(Civil Station). There is no civil station at Punalur, only Min civil station is functioning at Punalur. There is no chance of having any Labour Commissioner or Deputy Labour Commissioner at the Taluk Head Quarter. In the circumstance the Postal authorities might have bonafidely served the letter at the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam, Civil Station which is not a 3rd party but the higher officials of the addressee. Hence no malafides or dereliction of duty, negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed on the side of the postal authorities especially when the complainant has not properly stated the name and address of the recipient of the registered articles.
Now we shall consider the fate of the 2nd letter (Ext.P4) claimed to have sent by the complainant from Edamon Post Office. According to the complainant he sent another registered letter from Edamon Post Office on 27.10.15 addressed to the TECHNOKART INDIA Ltd, TKIL Punalur, KP Road,(TB Jn) Punalur-691305. It is clear from the available materials that the letter was received at Punalur on 28.10.15 which is on the very next day and was redirected to Valacode sub post office on the same day itself as KP Road
9
and TB Junction would come under the delivery jurisdiction of Valacode Post office. On the very next day ie, on 29.10.15 the delivery staff of Valacode Post Office attempted to locate the addressee but failed. Hence they returned the letter stating ‘address not known’. According to DW1 on a detailed enquiry it was understood that there is no such firm named TECHNOKART but firm named Next functioning in TB Junction and some of the articles received in the name of Next found to carry some times the name of TECHNOKART. But the name board exhibited does not carry Technokart. The name of the delivery post office furnished in the 2nd letter is also incorrect. As the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address and the registered post was sent in the incorrect address no wilful default or lapse or fraudulent act on the part of delivery staff can be inferred.
Regarding the 2nd registered articles the contention of the complainant is that the postal authorities have not conducted proper enquiry to find out the address and they simply returned the same with endorsement ‘addressee not known’. In the light of the evidence available on record we find little force in the above argument especially in the light of oral evidence on DW2 to 4. Ext.D4 is the 2nd registered letter returned to the sender with endorsement ‘not known at Valacode’. The address of the recipient is written in Ext.P4 as “The Technokart India Ltd., TKIL, Punalur, KP Road(TB Jn), Punalur-691305”. DW3 is the male oversear of Punalur Head Post Office who conduct enquiry on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant herein regarding the non service of the above letter. According to DW3 on his enquiry it was revealed that no such institution as Technokart functioning adjacent to KP Road. The above evidence of DW3 remains unchallenged. DW3 was ED Post women of Valacode Post Office. On 27.10.15 she received Ext.P4 letter from Head Post Office Punalur as it was redirected to that Post Office. The said letter was given to the Postman. But it was not delivered as no such addressee. Hence Ext.P4
10
was returned. According to DW3 KP Road, TB Junction, Punalur is within the territorial limit of Valacode Post Office and that is why Ext.P4 letter was redirected to that post office and on enquiry it was revealed that no such institution by name Technokart within that post office limit. According to DW3 on enquiry he could not found out the name board of the institution Technokart. In the office of the Next also there was no board attached stating Technokart. Nobody has informed at the post office that the institution Next is otherwise known as Technokart. In the circumstance Ext.P4 letter was returned to the sender. In view of the above materials on record it is crystal clear that the postal authorities have made necessary enquiry before returning Ext.P4 letter and we find no merit in the above contentions of the complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstance it can be inferred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities in not serving the postal articles sent by the complainant stating totally incorrect address. It is also clear from the available materials that in both cases the complainant was negligent in writing the proper address of the recipient of the registered posts. The complainant being the sender of the registered post is supposed to know the correct and complete address of the addressee and write the same on the cover to ensure its correct and prompt delivery. But the complainant has miserably failed to furnish the correct designation and address of the recipient of the above 2 letters. On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities . No departmental action can be initiated against postal employees for not serving postal articles which were sent in incorrect address. In view of the facts and circumstances we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.
11
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 1st day of April 2019.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Viswambharan
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Envelope
Ext.P2 : Copy of letter
Ext.P3 : Copy of complaint book
Ext.P4 : Returned cover
Ext.P5 : Copy of complaint book
Ext.P6 : Copy of complaint to CPMG
Ext.P7 : Copy of letter from CPMG
Ext.P8 : Copy of notice
Ext.P9 : Copy of letter from CPMG
Witness examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : Thomas Alex
DW2 : J.Omana
DW3 : C.R.Jayakumar
DW4 : Sureshkumar
Documents marked for the opposite party
Ext.D1 : Letter
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
