BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 24th day of May, 2004
C.D No.109/ 2003
S.Rajeswara Rao,
S/o Late S.John,
D.No.AN/B-30,
A-Camp,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
Superintendent of Post Officers,
Kurnool Division,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma,
O R D E R
1. This Consumer dispute case of the complainants is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking an award against the opposite party for Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental agony, loss of valuable documents relating to project work and for the costs of the case along with the other relief’s the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 23-11-2002 the complainant handed over to the opposite party a Foreign Envelop addressed to “The Sheep Fold Inc Post Box 992, Tuston CA 92681-714-669-9569-USA” consisting of the project work documents for the financial assistance of poor community duly affixing necessary post stamp of Rs.25/- for its transmission to the addresses. About one and half month thereafter to the surprise of the complainant the said envelop, returned to the complainant without its enclosures and with an endorsement of the American Postal Authorities as to the missing of enclosed documents of the said envelop due to inadvertence of the postal services of India. The loss of the valuable documents so sent by the complainant, at the neglect conduct of the Indian Postal Authorities not only deprived the benefits of the said project work to its beneficiaries, but also amounts to deficiency of service ensuing mental agony to the complainant.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance through its counsel and filed its written version denying the complainant’s case and its liability for the grievances of the complainant.
4. The written version of the opposite party admits the posting of an airmail cover in the Kurnool Head Post Office on 23-11-2002 to the addresses said in the complaint, by ordinary post, but denies any knowledge of it as to the contents of said envelop nonetheless of any valuable documents therein and the purpose of said envelop for what it being sent and denies of its any of its liability to inform the non delivery of un registered letters and any of its liability for compensation in case of non delivery, loss and damage of un registered article alleging the personal liability of shall if any in the contingency of such damage, loss, non deliver of the postal article was on account of fraud, willful act or fault of said postal official. As there is no liability for the postal department for the delivery, damage or loss of the un-registered article and as the complainant sent the said envelop by the ordinary post, seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In substantion of the contention while the complainant’s side relied upon the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 besides to his self sworn affidavit in reiteration of his case, the opposite party side merely laid its reliance on the legal position besides to its contentions in its written version.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party entitling him to the claim made?
7. The Ex.A1 is the said returned empty cover. The complainant alleges that in the said cover he has sent the valuable documents relating to the project work to the addresses mentioned therein. The said envelop was admittedly sent by the ordinary post and not under any registered post or value insured post. The complainant except alleging that he has sent in the said cover to its addresses valuable documents of the project work, does not mention how many were therein no and actual contents of the said document to assess it’s worth and the probable value of deprivation and fee the justifiability if the amount claimed. Nor he placed any such cogent record in pursuance of which he might have prepared and sent the so called project work and its documents to its addresses. Nor does the Ex.A2 letter dated 12-11-2002 of the complainant which is in point of time appear to be earlier to 23-11-2002, takes any reference to the complainant’s prospective intention to prepare any financial assistance project work for the welfare of down traden, poor needle and other entitled beneficiaries or its at any of his endeavor in that regard. Nor any requisition from the said American Addresses to the complainant for preparing any such project work and sent it to it for its favourable consideration in furtherance of any of its mission of down traden, poor and needy etc., even is filed by the complainant to appreciate the bonafidies in his stand.
8. Further if the complainant has really endeavored his sweat and pain in preparing any such vital project having its own importance in view of any benefit to the countless needy of the Society, he would not have paid such a less attention in positing them in an unsecured manner by a mere ordinary post and on the other hand, if there is any bonafidies in his contention, he would have sent in a secured manner to the come across any un warranted eventuality as regards its safe and secured reaching and in the otherwise circumstances so as to have its proper reimbursement. As there is no such an endeavor of an ordinary prudence on the part of the complainant and further claiming an extraordinary compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- without making any endeavor as to furnishing of the required particulars of the said documents, the alleged cause of the complainant, appears to be myth with the dis-honest intention to take a chancy un lawful gain, especially when Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act (Act 6, 1898) totally exempts liability of the postal department for loss, mis delivery delay or damage of the postal article and limits it to the personal liability of the said officer at whose fraudulent, willful or Commission, New Delhi in its case in Hajari Mal Moonat -Vs- Superintendent of Post Offices, Service Department reported in 2003 (1) CPJ Page 177 upholds the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum in view of the Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act warranting no interference in Revision.
9. When the complainant neither established the liability of the opposite party for the inconvenience he suffered nor placed any such cogent material in proof of the value of the said documents, as discussed above, nor the legal position stated supra being in favour of providing any relief to the complainant for the alleged grievances, the complainant fails for want of merit and force and when the complainant feels as such the other material in Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 requires any little appreciation as they are mere correspondence and does not through any effective light and provide any solution to the grievances of the complainant.
10. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion as the complainant fails in exposing the liability of the opposite party for the claim made the complainant is not remaining entitled to the claim made and hence the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, types to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court, this the 24th day of May, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Returned cover containing empty cover.
Ex.A2 Office copy of the Letter dated 12-11-2002 of complainant to the sheep fold Inc USA.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Notice dated 06-03-2004 to HPO Kurnool.
Ex.A4 Acknowledgement of opposite party as to the receipt of Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 The copy of reply dated 10-03-2002 of opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6 Xerox copy of the reply dated 17-03-2003 to the opposite party by the complainant to Ex.A5.
Ex.A7 Letter dated 25-03-2004 addressed by opposite party to the complainant to Ex.A6.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
