DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 10/08/2020
CC/91/2020
Shinu Mohanan M.,
S/o. M.N.Mohanan,
Manjapilliyil House,
Attapadi, Agali, Chittur P.O.,
Mannarkkad – 678 581,
Palakkad District
(Party in Person) - Complainant
Vs
1. Superintendent of Post Office,
Ottapalam Postal Division,
Shornur – 679 121
(Original OP1 was removed and present OP1 was impleaded
and substituted by order in IA 177/2020)
2. Post Master,
Post Office,
Chittur Agali, (Branch Office),
Palakkad – Kerala – 678 581 - Opposite parties
(OPs by Authorised Representative)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Complaint pleadings in short are to the effect that the opposite parties had failed to deliver an interview letter issued by Malabar Cements Ltd. to the complainant. This was not the first time that the opposite parties had been making such mistake. Earlier also such non-delivery had occurred, but the complainant chose to condone that mistake. Presently, the complainant is not ready to condone the mistake as he suffered heavily due to the non delivery of the article by the opposite parties. Complaint filed by him against the post man concerned fell into deaf ears. He is finding it difficult make ends meet with private employment. He failed to land in Government employment owing to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. Opposite Parties filed version through opposite party 2, opposing complaint pleadings. An ordinary postal article was delivered to the brother of the complainant even after the complainant had failed to provide the correct address for redirection. The postman concerned had taken pains to have the letter delivered to the father of the complainant. In actual practice, the official concerned should have, in similar situations, returned the article to sender with remark “left without any instruction”. Complainant’s complaint was enquired into and reply was issued to him. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. The following issues arise for consideration
- Whether the opposite parties were duty bound to deliver the letter to the complainant as alleged, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
- Reliefs, if any ?
4. Evidence comprised of proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A4 on the part of complainant and Ext. B1 on the part of the opposite parties.
Issue No. 1
5. The only question that has to be considered is whether the post man concerned had failed in his duty in delivering the article to the complainant in time.
In order to ascertain the duty of the postman concerned, we have to consider the nature of the article. The opposite parties have alleged that the article was an ordinary article, as opposed to a registered letter. Scanned copy of the cover is produced by the complainant and marked as Ext. A3. A Rs. 5/- stamp is seen affixed on the said cover. Hence it is proved that the cover is only an ordinary cover.
The complaint is conspicuously silent as to matter pertaining to redirecting address, addressee not being present, etc. No steps were taken to prove that he had provided redirecting address. Exts. A1 to A4 also does not prove the contentions of the complainant that his address was well known or that he was easy to trace out.
Even considering, for academic interest, that the complainant’s address was easy to trace out, fact remains that the duty cast upon the post man concerned was to return the article to sender, if the address for redirection was not provided. Instead, the postman concerned went out of his way and took effort to have the letter delivered to the addressee, with the methods available at his disposal. It may be true that receipt of the letter did not serve its purpose. In the alternative, had the postman concerned had returned the letter, then also the complainant would not have received the letter. Either way, the complainant stood to lose. But the effort put in by the post man is comment worthy.
Hence we find that there was no duty cast upon the postman concerned to have the article delivered to the complainant.
Issue No.2
6. We went through Clauses 67 to 72 of the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Inland Post issued by the Director – General of Posts. We find that the conduct of the opposite parties were in compliance with the aforesaid Clauses. Except for the part where they ought to have returned the article, they chose to deliver it. It may be an infraction, but we choose to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
Issues 3 & 4
7. Resultantly, we hold that, In view of the finding in issue No.2, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
8. The pleadings of the complaint is strong enough to make one believe that the address of the complainant was a matter of open knowledge and that the opposite parties willfully failed to deliver the communication to him. The complainant has willfully failed to disclose the facts that he was not living in the given address, that he had not given redirection address and that the letter was delivered to him after the effort put in by the post men concerned. It is true that any person, who has a grievance can approach a court for redressing his grievance. But he himself should approach the court with clean hands. He should disclose the factual matrix to the best of his ability. Having failed to do so, we find that the complainant has not come with clean hands and this is only a malicious litigation.
9. On the contrary, the opposite parties had put in extra effort by going out of the way to have an article delivered to the complainant. Therefore it is only in the interest of justice that a nominal cost is imposed on the complainant.
We order an amount of Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings payable by the complainant to the opposite parties.
This order shall be complied within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of August, 2022.
Sd/- Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of communication bearing no.L1-13282020 dated 12/10/2020
Ext.A2 - Printouts of screen shots
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of stamped envelope showing return address of MCL
Ext.A4 - Photocopy of letter of appointment bearing No.KK SE 102880 dt.3/3/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Copy of letter bearing No.CCC/OPM/CRF-2/1-01 dated 15/9/2020
Court Exhibit
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Court Witness
Nil
Cost : Cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to opposite parties allowed.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
