SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint for getting an order against opposite party to pay insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- together with compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of postal department failed in their duty to deliver the registered and insured article in spite of the fact that there was complete/full address.
Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant sent a registered letter No.RL354050533 to OP on 26/2/2019 was not delivered to the addressee in New Delhi 110001 and returned to complainant on 18/3/2019, in spite of the fact that there was correct/full address on the envelop. This registered letter was registered and insured for Rs.50,000/- paying a premium of Rs.3000/-. The contents of this RL was very much important document, original certified copy obtained from the Sub court Kannur ,was valuable and very much urgent as a reply to be submitted by next hearing after one month ,before the Sub court. The postal authority has refused to pay his claim amount of Rs.50,000/- raising all baseless reasons for return of this registered letter. It is submitted that the family of Nani Amma have suffered a lot by the alleged illegal refusal by the CR,MEA and irresponsible and illegal return of the postal articles by the OP. Nani Amma, the petitioner in OS 154/12, before the Sub Court Kannur was not allowed to enjoy even one rupee till her death on 26/1/2020 out of the assets of her son late Keloth Suresh, which is worth crores of rupees in England and India. Complainant further submitted that this registered post was sent by registered and insured for Rs.50,000/- paying an amount of total Rs.3035/- to the OP. It is alleged that the OP failed in their duty to deliver this registered and insured RL 35405053IN in spite of the fact that there was complete/full/correct address written on the RL. In spite of the fact that he paid a big amount of Rs.3035/- to a 75gm weighing letter for insurance and registration charges, which needs special care and attention of the postal department, they did not gave even as an ordinary post card. Hence the complaint.
OP filed written version stating that the complainant booked an registered letter No.RL354050533IN on 26/2/2019 and got insured the same for Rs.50,000/- which was addressed to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariat, New Delhi 110001. The said article was returned to the complainant-sender on 18/3/2019 with an endorsement ”incomplete address and , refused –MEA-CR” “Returned to sender”. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Post office, Kannur which was received in this office on 14/5/2019 and replied the complainant stating that the article in question was returned since it was in the designation Secretary to the Govt of India and there are multiple Secretaries in the Ministry of External Affairs like (1) Secretary East (2) Secretary Economic Relations and (3) Foreign Secretary and the complainant again his letter dtd.20/9/2019 asked the reason for return of the articles and also requested to grant the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- . The OP requested the complainant to contact the concerned Ministry for ascertaining the reason for refusing the article by the CR section of Ministry of External Affairs and intimated that as per clause 182 of Post office Guide Part(1), the claim is not applicable as the article under reference was returned and delivered in safe and sound condition to the complainant after being refused by the addressee. The complainant again filed a complaint for insurance claim to the Director Postal Services and the OP conducted an enquiry to examine the case and find the real truth./ The enquiry report revealed that there are 3 Secretaries working in the MEA. ie (1) Secretary East (2) Secretary Economic Relations and (3) Foreign Secretary etc . But the address on the said article did not clearly mention the individual Secretary name . Despite this, the efforts for delivery of article were attempted in MEA by Nirman Bhavan Po. But nobody in MEA got ready to receive the same. In view of the above the OP prays the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents. He has been examined as PW1 and marked the documents as Exts.A1 to A21. He has been subjected to cross-examination by OP. On the side of OP, ASP(HQ) has filed his chief affidavit and has been examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B5 marked.
After that the learned counsel of complainant and OP(appeared directly) filed their written argument notes.
We have gone through the records available before us and the submissions by both parties.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked a registered letter and insured the same for Rs.50,000/- by paying premium amount of Rs.3035/- on 26/2/2019 to the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, Secretariate, New Delhi. The said article was returned to the complainant-sender on 18/3/2019 with an endorsement ”incomplete address, refused –MEA-CR” “Returned to sender” after a lapse of 20 days.
In Ext.B1 letter it is stated that the article dtd.26/2/2019 was refused by addressee for in sufficient address. In Ext.B2&B4 OP informed the complainant to contact the concerned Ministry MEA for ascertaining reason for refusing the article.
Ext.A14 is the reply to the application for information sought under RTI Act, 2005 regarding Ext.B2 by Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi dtd.26/8/2021. In which MEA, replied that “ In this connection , this is to bring to your kind attention that Central Registry does not in any way handle or deliver the incoming postal mail meant for the Ministry. The entire process of handling and delivery is independently carried out by Department of Post. The postman deliver the postal mail directly to the concerned addressee in the Ministry. The responsibility for end delivery of incoming postal mail meant for Ministry thus lies entirely with Department of Post, Central Registry, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi cannot be held accountable for any shortcoming or lapse in this regard. The reasons attributed by Department of post for failure to deliver the letter are therefore invalid. If required you may pursue the complaint further with Department of Post itself in light of the clarification provided above instead of following up the same with Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi”
The learned counsel of complainant submitted that from Ext.A14 it is clear that the postman has not taken the article to the concerned addressee in the Ministry .The article was returned from the post office itself without taking the article to the concerned addressee. Endorsement of refusal and incomplete address is made by the postman himself. Ext.A14 specifically states that it is the duty of the postal department to serve notice on the addressee of the registered letter. Now it can be held that the duty cast on the postal department is not effectively and properly discharged by the postal department. This would amount to deficiency in service.
From the above facts it is found that the contention of OP that the enquiry report revealed that there are 3 Secretaries working in the MEA. ie (1) Secretary East (2) Secretary Economic Relations and (3) Secretary Foreign and the address on the said article did not clearly mention the individual Secretary name and thus the article was refused by the addressee M EA CR is not a believable statement.
From the contentions in the reply letter Ext.A14 by the MEA and absence of any reasonable explanation from the OP shows that OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant. Further the disputed article was returned on a delayed date of remittance which does not serve the purpose for which it was sent by the complainant in a registered post and insured for Rs.50,000/- by paying Rs.3035/- as premium.
Therefore, the case of the complainant come under the mischief of willful act and default on the part of the officials of the post office.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get relief.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- the insured amount to complainant together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant as a result of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which the awarded amount Rs.50,000/-+ 10,000/- carries interest@12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1- Letter issued by complainant to post office Kannur Dtd.9/4/19
A2&A3-letter issued by Superintendent of post office Kannur to PW1 with cover
A4-letter issued by Assistant Director GPO New Delhi to PW1 with cover
A5,A7- letter issued by PW1 to Assistant Director GPO New Delhi
A6-letter issued by Dept. of Post New Delhi to PW1
A8- letter issued by Superintendent of post New Delhi
A9,A11-letter issued by PW1 to Post office New Delhi
A10,A12- letter issued by Superintendent of post office New Delhi Central Division to PW1 with cover
A13- letter issued by Asst. Director Delhi to PW1
A14- Copy of the letter NoQ/R&D/551/1/2021
A15-copy of letter from PW1 to Commissioner of Police New Delhi
A16-Reply of Ext.A15
A17-Details of return of notice from the Sub court Kannur
A18- Non receipt of AD card details
A19- AD card received back without name and signature of the addressee
A20- Enclosure “D”
A21- Return of 3 registered/insured letter by MEA,New Delhi.
B1&B2,B3,B5- letter issued by Superintendent of post office New Delhi Central Division to PW1 with
cover dt.16/8/19, 7/11/19,2/12/19,5/7/2021
B4- Postal Guide ruling
PW1- K Karunakaran-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
