Karnataka

Gadag

CC/27/2018

Smt Girijavva W/o Channabasappa Shadalageri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supdt of Post Offices & CPIO and another - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Mudgal

31 May 2019

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation from the Opposite parties (herein after in short as Op’s) to pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of articles in godown, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,00,000/-each towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and also Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

 

2.      The case of the complainant is that on 06-10-2016 she had sent registered post to Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Chikkenakoppa, Tq: Yalaburga, Dist: Koppal vide Speed Post Receipt No.EK652975622IN.  But the said speed post cover returned back on 24-10-2016 with an endorsement that the “Addressee Door Locked for 07 days”.   As the Complainant sent the said cover through speed post, but it was returned back after 18 days by paying extra money.  The said addressee is a public establishment which could not be door lock for continuous 07 days and the Post Man might have mingled with the said addressee, intentionally returned back the said cover without delivering the same and even it was returned after 18 days.    The said addressee society had thrown out the grains and agricultural equipment from the godown, as such Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.    The In the said speed post cover, the Complainant sent a D.D. for Rs.3,600/-towards rent of complex of the said society.   As the said DD do not reached the said Society in the prescribed time, so the Complainant could not get the building on rent.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The Complainant has sent legal notice to the OPs on 25-05-2018, which has been served upon them, but they do not reply the same.   Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming the compensation as stated above.

3.      The predecessor on seat registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such Opponents present before the Forum. Op’s filed their written version the contents are as follows.

Written Version of the Op’s

1. The OP No.1 filed the Objection to the Complaint and the OP No.2 adopted the same. 
2. OPs contended that Complaint of complainant is not true.  It is not tenable in law. The contents of complaint are all false and are specifically denied by the OP. The complainant has filed the false and vexatious complaint suppressing the material facts.  Hence the Complaint be dismissed.

 

 

3. The OPs submits that the speed post articles is returned to sender on 24-10-2016, the original cover not listed as document to confirm the remarks passed as door locked for days.
4. The said article which was booked at Koppal HO was received at Kuknoor SO on dated10-10-2016 which sent to Chikkekoppa BO on the same day.  The said article was returned to sender since the addressee was not found for seven days during the visit of Postman.  The CEO PACS informed over phone that he will come and take the article.  Hence the article was kept in his custody even after lapse of 7 days.  During that time the VSSN was locked by the public due to dispute between public and VSSN Chikkenkoppa.   Under such circumstances, GDS BPM had no option than to keep the article in deposit till arrival of the addressee.  But since the addressee has not approached post office even after lapse of 13 days.  The same returned back to sender on dated 24-10-2016.  There was no deliberate negligence in delivery.  The speed post article addressed to CEO PACS Chikkenkoppa.  As per rules the article will be taken for delivery on the day one and intimation will be served to the address.

 

5. It is further submitted that again will be taken for affecting delivery on day two, if addressee is not available the article will be kept at post office for five days for the addressee to collect the letter.  The letter will be returned if not claimed the addressee after 07 days, as such the question of office close for seven days does not arise.  The loss incurred by the applicant is not due to the deficiency in service on the part of the department failure on the part of addressee to collect the letter within seven days after intimation is delivered.    

 

6. It is further submitted that the applicant/sender of speed post article should have insured the letter, if it contains valuable such as DD.  The non-delivery of speed post article is no due to the deficiency of service.  The reply has been given to legal notice dated:25-05-2018 based on the enquiries carried out in the meantime the Complainant has filed this Complaint to harass the OPs.    Hence OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

 

                         

4.      The Complainant has filed his affidavit and filed 06 documents which are as follows;

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents
Ex.C-1	Legal notice.
Ex.C-2	RTI Report.
Ex.C-3	Post office Gadag Letter.
Ex.C-4	Post office speed post schedule letter
Ex.C-5	BO Slip
Ex.C-6	B.O. Slip

 

On the other hand OP No.2 filed evidence affidavit along with 08 documents, which are as follows;

respondent FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows.

Sl.No.	Documents
Ex.OP-1	List of Directors of PACS Chikkenkoppa.
Ex.OP-2	Written statement of Bheemanagouda K.Patil.
Ex.OP-3	Letter of Post office of Koppal, dtd:22-06-2018.
Ex.OP-4	List of booking speed posts at Koppal.
Ex.OP-5	Written statement of CEO PACS Chikkenkoppa.
Ex.OP-6	Written statement of Bheemangoud BPM, Chikkekoppa.
Ex.OP-7	B.O. Slip from Kuknoor to Chikkenkoppa
Ex.OP-8	Public Intimation by PACS Chikkenkopa.

         

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudication are as follows: Points arises for our consideration are

1.      Whether the Complainant proves that the OPs made deficiency in service.

 

        2.     Whether Complainant entitled for the reliefs?

        3.     What order?         

Our Answer to the above points are:-

1.  Affirmative.
2.  Partly affirmative.  
3.  As per the final order.

 

R E A S O N S

6.  Point No-1& 2:- The complainant made the allegations against the OPs stating that the OPs are delivered back the speed post article, after lapse of 18 days, stating that “the door is locked”, due to this complainant suffered a lot, she has sent the DD to the VSSN Chikkenkoppa towards the rent amount of a gowdon, due to delay of service of OP the rent has not reached to the tenant in time and the tenant had vacate his gowdon by throwing the things which has been kept in the premises of the rented gowdown.  Hence the Complainant suffered a lot and due to rain fall and other natural calamity the things vanished and she faced a loss to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- due to the negligence of the OPs. 

7.      On the other hand OPs filed objection stating that the article which has been sent by the Complainant is not delivered because the premises has been locked due to some dispute between the villages and the Co-operative society, in between the postman tried to correspondence with CEO of PACS to receive the speed post and the CEO informed the postman to keep the article with him and he will collect it.  Hence he kept it with him and the PACS CEO not collected the same, even enquiry had been conducted and the CEO had given a letter stating that the door has been locked during those days.  Hence the OP No.1 filed a report stating that after enquiry he came to know that the department had not made any deficiency or unfair trade practice towards the Complainant.

8.      On perusal of the records on file and argument of the advocates of the Parties and it is also undisputed that the article has been sent to the Complainant after 18 days and it is also undisputed fact that Complainant made a speed post to her owner of the building

(VSSN Chikkenkoppa) and it is also true that the OP No.1 conducted an enquiry and some of the documents which has been furnished before the Forum that the door has been locked between 01-10-2016 to 31-10-2016.  The society has been locked due to the dispute between the villagers and the society, it speaks as Ex.OP-5 and further as per Ex.OP-5 & 8, it says that they have informed publicans in this regard the society has been closed for this period.  Such being the fact why could not post man sent back the speed post to the Complainant as early as possible making note of the same.   

          9.     The another main thing we have to discuss that whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the Complaint.  Complainant not produced any supported document that she had suffered to that extent which has been elaborately written in the Complaint and even the Complainant has not produced any photos or loss assessment made to her.  Hence we cannot deny that the OPs are made deficiency in service and unfair trade.  The Ops have committed deficiency in service.  Hence we came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, so we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative and Point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

10.    Point No-3:- For the reasons and discussion made above we proceed to pass the following:-

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. OPs directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-to the Complainant for deficiency in service.  Further litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- and comply this order within 30 days, failing which the OPs are liable to pay Rs.50,000/-to the consumer welfare fund.  

3.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 31^st day of May. 2019)

 

 

         (Shri B.S.Keri)                             (Smt.C.H.SamiunnisaArbrar)

             Member                                                  President