BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 340/2003 Filed on 22.08.2003

Dated : 16.11.2009

Complainant:

Lt. Col. Treasa Paul, M.H. Officers Mess, Military Hospital now working at Pangode Military Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K.P. Renadive)

Opposite parties:

1. Department of Post represented by the Chief Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Circle.

    

2. Chief Post General of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division (Speed Post), Bareilly-243 001.

    

4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kannur Division, Kannur-670 001.

(By M.P. Sasidharan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 04.02.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.09.2009, the Forum on 16.11.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant in this case is a Lt. Col. One of the colleagues of the complainant at Bareilly had sent a postal article No. EE-6962-99109 from Bareilly H.O. on 17.04.2002 at 12:14:33 by Speed Post to Mundayad P.O, Kannur. The said article was delivered to the addressee only on 22.04.2002 at around 14:15 hrs by the postman of Mundayad Post office. The 2^nd opposite party has made an assurance that the letter must be delivered to the addressee within 3 days. But the letter was delivered only on 19.04.2002. The complainant has made written complaint to the officials of the postal authorities continuously, viz, complaint to the Superintendent of Post Master, Head Post Office, Kannur on 23.04.2002 and complaint to the Superintendent of Post Office, Bareilly division on 16.05.2002 etc. On 16.10.2002 the officials of Department of Post India had sent a letter No. R2/SP/11/2001-02 to the complainant acknowledging their deficiency in service, sanctioned a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation for the delay in delivery of speed post article. The complainant has to collect the amount from the office of the 2^nd opposite party. The above memo sent by the opposite party clearly reveals that they also admit delay in their service towards the complainant. The opposite party failed to send even a money order for the said amount. The complainant states that due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party, complainant had undergone a lot of mental agony and financial loss by making repeated telephone calls from Mundayad to Bareilly in the peak hours regarding the acceptance of the article. The registered article was a very important certificate related to the complainant's son's future career. The complainant's son was an applicant of Kerala Medical Entrance Examination who had applied under military quota. For applying under the military quota the service certificate of the complainant was highly necessary. At that time the complainant was at Kannur and thus one of her colleagues, Major Annamma Joseph, had sent the speed post containing the service certificate of the complainant from Bareilly to Kannur. Subsequently the service certificate of the complainant was sent to her through fax. That delay in servicing the speed post article in time by the opposite party is to be treated as deficiency of service for which the opposite party is liable to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

The opposite parties, the Department of Posts and others filed their version. In the version they raised preliminary objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this dispute. The cause of action in this case was raised at Bareilly Postal Division where the article was booked and at Kannur Postal Division from where the Speed Post article delivered. This Forum heard the matter and thereafter passed the order that since the Postal department having branches all over India, and the branch offices within the jurisdiction of this Forum is there in the party array, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Their other contentions are that the letter was received at Speed Post Centre Kannur on 20.04.2002. As the addressee was not within the delivery jurisdiction of the Speed Post Centre, the letter was despatched to the correct destination Mundayad Post office through Kannur Railway Mail Service on the very same day. The article was delivered to the complainant on 22.04.2002 without delay. The opposite parties further submitted that Bareilly Post Office in Uttar Pradesh where the speed post article was booked has no direct flight or other transport facilities to Kannur. As per the routing arrangement, speed post articles are sent to Delhi by train from where they are despatched to Kochi or Calicut by flight. From Kochi or Calicut they are again sent by train to Kannur. The prescribed delivery norms of a speed post article from Bareilly to Kannur as per the above routing arrangement is 4 days. 21.04.2002 was Sunday-holiday and hence the article despatched from Kannur on 20.04.2002 was delivered from Mundayad on 22.04.2002. In fact there is no delay in the delivery of the article. The 3^rd opposite party had ordered for return of speed post charge vide letter No. CR-2/SP/11/2001-02 dated 27.05.2003 irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above. The opposite parties further submitted that the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation on account of delay in delivery for speed post articles except to the extent of orders noticed by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications vide Gazette Notification under GSR 4(1) (E) dated 21.01.1999 regarding the quantum of compensation to be paid for delay in delivery of the speed post articles. According to the notification the compensation to be granted for delay in delivery of speed post article shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid. In this case the offer of the 3^rd opposite party to return the speed post fee has not been accepted by the complainant and hence the complaint is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties stated that it is a settled law that the notification issued by the Ministry of Communications under powers conferred by Sec. 21 of Indian Post office Act. The complainant is not eligible to get benefit more than what is stated by law in force.

In this case complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavit. From the complainant's side 8 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. Opposite parties filed 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 & D2.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs.

Points (i)& (ii):- The case of the complainant is that there has been delay from the side of opposite parties to deliver the speed post article to the addressee. To prove her contention the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 8 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the letter dated 23.04.2002 sent by the complainant to the 4^th opposite party. Ext. P2 is the reply letter dated 29.04.2002 issued by the 4^th opposite party to the complainant stating the reasons for the delay in delivery. Ext. P3 is the copy of letter dated 23.06.2002 sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of reply letter issued by 3^rd opposite party to the complainant dated 27.05.2002. In that letter the 3^rd opposite party stated that there was no avoidable delay in the delivery of speed post article. And also in that letter the 3^rd opposite party informed that the matter will be looked into and compensation payable if any as per rules will be settled. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter dated 16.10.2002 issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant. Through this letter the 3^rd opposite party has given intimation to the complainant that compensation of Rs. 50/- is sanctioned due to delay in delivery of speed post article. Ext. P6 is the copy of lawyer's notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 03.06.2003. Ext. P7 is the postal receipt and Ext. P8 is the acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party.

Ext. D1 is the copy of concerned page of Indian Post Office Act. As per this Act exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage(the Government) shall not incur any liability by reasons of 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 be undertaken by the [Central Government] as hereinafter provided and no office 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 wilful act or default. In this case there is no wilful fault or fraud from the side of opposite parties for the delay. Ext. D2 is the copy of notification issued by the Ministry of Communications dated 21.01.1999 regarding the quantum of compensation to be paid for delay in delivery of speed post articles. According to the notification the compensation to be granted for delay in delivery of speed post article shall be equal to the composite speed post charge paid. In this case in accordance with the notification the 3^rd opposite party offered Rs. 50/- to the complainant, but the complainant has not accepted the same. The opposite party produced the order reported in IV (2008) CPJ 260. The Hon'ble Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dilip Kumar Debnath Vs. Superintendent of Post, Kalyani Business Office & another. In that case the Hon'ble State Commission has ruled that under the Department of Post norms, the respondents are liable to pay a compensation equal to the composite speed post charges paid. The opposite party produced the judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 15/1997, R.P. No. 1006/2001 and R.P. No. 1035/2002. In this joint order the National Commission upheld that we cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and grand compensation more than that what is statutorily fixed. The Hon'ble National Commission affirmed that to award the total amount of composite speed post charges, if there is delay in delivery of speed post articles. In this case the opposite parties offered the compensation according to the provisions of rules, but the complainant did not accept the same. Hence we find that the complaint filed by the complainant is not allowable. Hence the complaint is dismissed with liberty to accept the amount offered by the opposite parties as per rules. No costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of November 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 340/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of letter dated 23.04.2002 sent by the complainant to

4^th opposite party.

P2 - Copy of reply letter dated 29.04.2002 issued by the 4^th

opposite party to complainant.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 23.06.2002 sent by the complainant to

3^rd opposite party.

P4 - Copy of reply letter dated 27.05.2002 issued by the 3^rd

opposite party to complainant.

P5 - Copy of letter dated 16.10.2002 issued by the 3^rd

opposite party to complainant.

P6 - Copy of lawyer's notice dated 03.06.2003.

P7 - Postal receipt dated 03.06.2003

P8 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT