CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K, Member Date of filing: 28/09/2011

CC / 162 / 2011

A. Sulaiman,

S/o. Aboo Backer,

17/176, Narikuthy,

Palakkad HPO,

Pin – 678 001. - Complainant

(BY ADV. K.P. NOUPHAL)

Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Branch Office No.2,

R.S. Road, PB No. 13,

Palakkad, Pin – 678 001.

(BY ADV. T.P. GEORGE)

2. The Post Master,

Head Post office,

Palakkad,

Palakkad Taluk - Opposite parties

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:-

Complainant's Life Insurance Policy was entrusted to 1^st opposite party as security for loan obtained at the strength of the premium paid. On closure of the loan, complainant demanded for the original policy. 1^st opposite party assured that the same will be send by post. When it was not received, the complainant enquired with 1^st opposite party where in it was informed that it was already sent by post through 2^nd opposite party. According to the complainant he has not so far received the original policy either from 1^st opposite party or from 2^nd opposite party. Lawyer notice was issued by the complainant for which 1^st opposite party replied along with the copy of the delivery slip. Complainant disputes the signature in the delivery slip. Complaint is filed for compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and also for an order for issuing a duplicate policy.

1^st opposite party filed version contenting that they have sent the policy through registered post on 01/10/2010. It was delivered to the complainant on 04/10/2010 by 2^nd opposite party as per the delivery slip issued by 2^nd opposite party. Immediately on receipt of lawyer notice, 1^st opposite party confirmed the delivery of the bond from 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party is ready to issue a duplicate copy on request. According to 1^st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

2^nd opposite party filed version admitting wrong delivery of the registered letter to one Kaja Hussain who is the brother of the complainant residing very near to the residence of the complainant. Since Kaja Hussain is now abroad, the registered letter could not be retrieved. The said fact was intimated to the complainant as well as 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party treating the letter as 'lost before delivery to the addressee' was ready to pay permissible ex-gratia amount as compensation for which complainant was not amicable. Further states that there is no provision for payment of any compensation for loss of registered letter. If the article contained any valuable items it should have been sent through insured post. More over as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, Department of Posts is absolved from its responsibility in the event of any loss/misdelivery of any postal article if it was not willful or fraudulently act on the part of any employees of the department.

Complainant and both opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext. A1 to A2 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, What is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issues I & II

The specific case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party failed to return the original policy after closure of the loan account. 1^st opposite party on the other hand contented that it was sent through registered post to the complainant and the delivery was confirmed through 2^nd opposite party also. 2^nd opposite party admitted wrong delivery of the registered cover to the brother of the complainant. But their liability for the loss is subject to Section 6 of the Post Office Act.

We have gone through the entire evidence on record and heard the rival submissions of both parties. Facts of the case are more or less admitted. The short questions to be considered in order to determine deficiency on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are as follows:

1. Whether the act of 1^st opposite party in not insuring the registered post amounts to deficiency in service ?

2. Whether the 2^nd opposite party can absolve liability quoting Section 6 post Office Act 1898 ?

it is true that 1^st opposite party has sent the policy by registered post without any delay and 1^st opposite party was under the impression that it was delivered to the complainant as revealed from the delivery slip (Ext.B2). 1^st opposite party has argued that the usual practice adopted for delivery of such items is by registered post. 1^st opposite party has no case that it is mandatory to sent it by registered post. On the other hand considering the fact that it is a very valuable document, 1^st opposite party ought to have sent it by insured registered post. Further complainant has approached 1^st opposite party for issuing a duplicate copy. At that time 1^st opposite party was well aware of the fact that complainant has not received the original. 2^nd opposite party has specifically stated that the fact of wrong delivery was intimated to 1^st opposite party. Even then 1^st opposite party failed to issue the same. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

Now the question is whether Section 6, Post Office Act absolve the liability of 2^nd opposite party. Wrong delivery is an admitted fact.

Section 6 Post office Act read as follows:

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 by 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 willful act or default.

2^nd opposite party has stated that the registered letter was given to the brother of the addressee who is residing near by. Hence it is a willful act as contemplated in Section 6 of the Post Office Act . There is specific provision laid down in the rules in case, addressee is not seen. The act of 2^nd opposite party can be treated deficiency in service on their part.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complaint be allowed.

In the result complaint allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to complainant and 2^nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 3^rd day of January, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/- Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1 (series) – Lawyer notice (copy) along with postal order and Ack. due issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party dated 07/06/2011.

Ext. A2 – Reply letter from 1^st opposite party head office to complainant's advocate dated 15/06/2011.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext. B1 – Letter (copy) issued by the 1^st opposite party to 2^nd opposite party dated 25/01/2011.

Ext. B2 (series) – Letter (copy) sent by the 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party.

Ext. B3 – Duplicate Policy Schedule issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil.

Cost allowed

No cost allowed.