BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC),

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Thursday the 23^rd day of July, 2015

C.C.No.113/2013

Between:

Medum Nirmala Kumari,

W/o Medum Ramdas,

H.No.49/29 F,

Medum Compound,

Kurnool District.                                                             …Complainant

-Vs-

Superintendent of Post Office,

Kurnool Division,

H.No.18/100,

Kurnool District-518 001.                                                          …OPPOSITE PARTY

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.CH.Joga Rao, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                                                                     ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)

      C.C. No.113/2013

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite party:-

1. To return the RC of the vehicle to the complainant.

2. To pay compensation a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- toward mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.

3. To grant costs of the complaint.

4. To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances.

2.    The facts of the complaint in brief run as follows:- The complainant purchased New Maruthi Sujuki Ertica Car and it was registered by RTO, Kurnool and allotted No.AP21 AN 7728, and RC Card was sent by the Office of RTO by speed post SP Article No.EN896529160IN dated 30.06.2012 to the complainant address (i.e.,) M.Nirmala Kumari, H.No.40/29F1, Medum Compound, Park Road, Kurnool.  But the RC was not delivered to the above address.  The complainant lodged a written complaint to opposite party dated 01.12.2012 regarding non delivery of SP Article.  On 18.12.2012 and 26.12.2012 the opposite party sent the letters stating that the said SP Article was delivered to K.Bhagyalakshmi who is the inmate of 40/30, Park Road, Kurnool and there is a Karnataka Bank in H.No.40/29F.  But the opposite party delivered the cover to wrong address.  The very purpose for purchasing the New Car was to go to Chennai for Eye Operation of her husband and also regular checkup to the complainant.  The complainant have made other necessary arrangement and incurred heavy amount and suffered lot of mental agony.  The complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party for delivery of RC and compensation but the opposite party did not settle the matter.  There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

3.       Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is maintainable neither in law nor on facts of the case.  It is admitted that the complainant made a complaint regarding the non delivery of speed post Article the opposite party enquired about the matter and found that the article was delivered to the daughter-in-law of the complainant on 02.07.2012, who is the resident of H.No.40/29F1, Park Road, Kurnool, it was signed by her, the Karnataka Bank is situated in H.No.40/29F.  The opposite party denied that the complainant purchased a New Car and the said car was registered and the RTO sent a RC by SP Article No.EN896529160IN dated 30.06.2012.  The opposite party did not receive any complaint from the sender of SP Article about the delivery of article.  As per rules office memorandum issued by Ministry of Communications and IT, New Delhi-1 dated 01.06.2010.  The speed   post is to be delivered to the address or any other person who takes delivery of the article at the address.  Inspite of receiving the article the complainant has filed this complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 4.      On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of opposite party Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.

5.       Both sides filed written argument.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- It is the case of the complainant that she purchased New Maruthi Sujuki Ertica car and it was registered by RTO, Kurnool bearing No.AP21 AN 7728 and RC Card was sent by the Office of RTO by speed post SP article No.EN896529160IN dated 30.06.2012 to the complainant address, H.No.40/29F1, Medum Compound, Park Road, Kurnool.  But the said SP article was not delivered to complainant address.  The complainant made a complaint to superintendent of the Post Office, Kurnool regarding the non delivery of said SP article.  The photo copy of said letter is marked as Ex.A1 dated 01.12.2012.  The opposite party sent two letters on different dated 19.12.2012 and 26.12.2012 stating that the said SP article was delivered to K.Bhagya Lakshmi, who is the resident of 40/30, Park Road, Kurnool.  The complainant house address 40/29F1 given by the complainant in which there is a Karnataka Bank.  The photo copies of letters of opposite party to complainant are marked as Ex.A2 and Ex.A3.  The complainant got issued legal notice and demanded the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards sufferance, damages and mental agony.  But the opposite party did not give any reply to the said notice.  There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for delivered the SP article to the wrong person, due to the negligent act of opposite party the complainant suffered mental agony. 

8.       It is the case of opposite party that the SP article No.EN896529160IN dated 30.06.2012 was delivered on 02.07.2012 to Smt.K.Bhagya Lakshmi, who is the resident of 40/30A, Madum Compound, Park Road, Kurnool copy of delivery slip dated 02.07.2012.  In delivery slip K.Bhagya Lakshmi was signed in it, it is marked as Ex.B4.  On enquiry it was found that K.Bhagya Lakshmi is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and she gave a statement with regard to receipt of said SP article.  The photo copy of statement is marked as Ex.B3 dated 21.01.2013.  The photo copy of statement of post man    beat No.14 dated 03.01.2013 stating that there is no wrong delivery.  The photo copy of Envelop of Karnataka Bank and photo copy of cover of complainant address is marked as Ex.B1.  The photo copy of Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2010 is marked as Ex.B5.  It is further case of opposite party that the article is delivered to the address on the same day.  In proof of delivery, the copy of statement given by postman Bea t No.14 and Bhagyalakshmi and also the delivery slip are also filed.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that as per the Office Memorandum issued by Ministry of Communications and IT, New Delhi-1 “The speed post Article is to be delivered to the addressee or any other person who takes delivery of the article at the address.  Hence to pray for return of RC of vehicle does not arise and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

9.       The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the opposite party delivered the cover to wrong address (i.e.,) 40/30A, Madum Compound, Park Road, Kurnool and there is no Karnataka Bank in H.No.40/29F1.  There is no cordial relationship with complainant and wrong person who received the said cover.  As per the Memorandum filed by opposite party Ex.B5, in para (g) clearly mentioned that the undelivered speed post article would be returned either to the sender or to the return address mentioned in the speed post.  To support his version he cited a decisions report in:-

1. III (2008) CPJ Page 194,
2. II (2005) CPJ Page 256,
3. II (2014) CPJ Page 475 (NC)

In the cited case the complainant was not available in his room the letter was delivered to his companion residing in his room, not acceptable, it was held that Postal Department had no authority to deliver the envelop to wrong person.  All original certificates of complainant lost due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  In the present case on hand also the SP Article delivered to the wrong person residing in 40/30A instead of H.No.40/29F1 the facts of the cited case is applicable to the instant case.

10.     As seen from Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 the letters sent by opposite party to the complainant and Ex.B3 Bhagya Lakshmi statement Ex.B4 delivery slip it is very clear that the opposite party delivered the SP article No.EN896529160IN dated 30.06.2012 to Smt.Bhagya Lakshmi, who is the resident of 40/30A, Madum Compound, Park Road, Kurnool.  When the subsequent two articles Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 were delivered to the complainant bearing the same address (i.e.,) 40/29F1, why should the above said SP article not delivered to the said address.   As per Ex.B1 it is clear that the Karnataka Bank is situated Door No.40/29F, M.M.M. complex, 1^st Floor, Park Road, Kurnool and the complainant address is D.No.40/29F1, Park Road, Kurnool and the speed post articles is delivered to the address Door No.40/30A, Park Road, Kurnool.  The complainant filed Property Tax Demand Notice, Insurance Certificate and Invoice of Vehicle No.AP21 AN 7728 along with memo in order to show the complainant address and registration of vehicle.  As per Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 it is clearly shows that the opposite party negligently delivered the SP article to Bhagya Lakshmi in H.No.40/30A.  The opposite parties might have to take steps to recover the SP article from the wrong person, who received it but did not handed over to the complainant intentionally.   We consider all the material available on record and in the light of above decisions we found deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant is a senior citizen, due to the negligent act of opposite party the complainant lost the registration certificate of her new vehicle and suffered a lot of mental agony.

11.    Point No.iii:- The complainant prayed for return of RC of vehicle and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards financial loss and mental agony.  Basing on the facts and material placed on record we are of the view that the opposite party is directed to return the RC of vehicle to the complainant and further direct to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

12.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to return the RC of vehicle of the complainant and liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23^rd day of July, 2015.

         Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-      

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FA C)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

         Witnesses Examined

For the complainant:- Nil                     For the opposite party:- Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1          Photo copy of Letter of complainant to the Superintendent of Post Office, Kurnool, dated 01-12-2012.

Ex.A2          Photo copy of Letter of opposite party to complainant dated             19-12-2012 along with envelop cover.

Ex.A3          Letter of opposite party to complainant dated 26-12-2012 along with envelop cover.

Ex.A4          Office copy of Legal Notice dated 21-02-2013.

Ex.A5          Postal Acknowledgement.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-

Ex.B1                    Photo copy of Envelop of Karnataka Bank Limited.

Ex.B2          Photo copy of Statement of Postman of Beat No.14 dated                03-01-2013.

Ex.B3          Photo copy of Statement of Smt.Bhagya Lakshmi daughter in law of complainant dated 21-01-2013.

Ex.B4                   Photo copy of Speed Post Delivery Slip dated 02-07-2012.

Ex.B5          Photo copy of Office Memorandum, dated 01-06-2010.

         Sd/-                                                                                     Sd/-      

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FA C)

     // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :