Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

92/2010

Rajan Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Postmaster General - Opp.Party(s)

N.P.Shanmugasundaram

08 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 17.02.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 08.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.92/2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 08^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

Rajan Pradhan,

S/o. Mr. Dhannarayan Pradhan,

No.81, Poes Garden,

Chennai – 600 086.                                                      .. Complainant.                                               

 

                                                                                         ..Versus..

 

1. The Chief Postmaster General,

No.828, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. The Post Master General,

Chennai City Region,

No.2, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. The Post Master,

Teynampet Post Office,

Chennai – 600 018.

 

4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City Central Division,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  M/s. L.P. Shanmugasundaram

 

Counsel for opposite parties :  M/s. M. Praveen Kumar

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

 

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of articles contained in the parcel by not delivering the same to the addressee which was booked through the 3^rd opposite party herein vide the receipt RPA 1136 dated:02.09.2009 and to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for damages and loss of time with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that during the month of September 2009 on the eve of ‘Navarathiri Celebration’, the complainant sent artistic and special kind of embroidery worked saree worth Rs.10,000/- to his wife Mrs. Saritha Pradhan residing at Neapani Tamang Tola, No.1 Belgochi Post, Darjeeling, West Bengal weighting 1065 grams booked under parcel service dated:02.09.2009.   But the same was not reached to the addressee in time. Hence the complainant issued a letter dated:11.09.2009.  Evenafter that, the opposite party has not delivered the parcel.  So, the complainant issued a another letter dated:17.09.2009 and thereafter legal notice dated:07.10.2009 which was duly acknowledgment by the opposite parties who sent replies dated:09.10.2009 & 23.11.2009 to the complainant.  Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not delivered the parcel.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complainant filed this case.   

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that the complainant sent a Registered Parcel bearing RP A 1136 dated:02.09.2009.   But the contents of the Registered Parcel were not disclosed and not known to the opposite parties’ officials.  The registered parcel also promptly despatched to the next office on 02.09.2009.   On 11.09.2009, the complainant made a complaint to the Sub Postmaster, Teynampet Post Office was received on 14.09.2009 at the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Chennai City, Central Division.  Immediately, a reply was sent to the complainant as well as Darjeeling Division.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant was informed about the action taken by the opposite parties.   The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties has not taken any action is utter false and not correct.  Further the opposite parties state that as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the opposite parties are not liable for the loss by way of misdelivery or delay in delivery or damages.  The complainant is entitled for only ex-gratia compensation of Rs.100/- alone.  Further the opposite parties state that the compensation claimed is imaginary.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of articles in the parcel not delivered by the opposite party as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant  is entitled to a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-  as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that during the month of September 2009 on the eve of ‘Navarathiri Celebration’, the complainant sent artistic and special kind of embroidery worked saree worth Rs.10,000/- to his wife Mrs. Saritha Pradhan residing at Neapani Tamang Tola, No.1 Belgochi Post, Darjeeling, West Bengal weighting 1065 grams booked under parcel service as per Ex.A1 dated:02.09.2009.   But the same was not reached to the addressee in time. Hence the complainant issued a letter as per Ex.A2 dated:11.09.2009.  The complainant also received reply from the 4^th opposite party dated:14.09.2009 as per Ex.A3 stating that

“We are enquiring into it and will write to you again shortly.  In the meantime, if you have heard anything from the addressee regarding disposal, the same may please be intimated to this office”.

Evenafter that, the opposite party has not delivered the parcel.  So, the complainant issued a letter dated:17.09.2009 as per Ex.A4 and thereafter, the legal notice as per Ex.A5 dated:07.10.2009 which was duly acknowledgment by the opposite parties as per Ex.A6 who sent a reply as per Ex.A7 & Ex.A8 stating that

“The inconvenience caused to you is regretted.   Assuring you of our best services always”.

Inspite of repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties has not delivered the parcel.   Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case.  Further the complainant contended that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1998, the opposite parties are not liable for the loss of articles; cannot be accepted.  But the complainant has not denied that he sent the articles through parcel which is not insured.   Equally, the complainant has not disclosed what are the items in the parcel and its value. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly,  the complainant sent a Registered Parcel bearing RP A 1136 dated:02.09.2009 as per Ex.A1.   But the contents of the registered parcel were not disclosed and not known to the opposite parties’ officials.  The parcel was brought in a closed condition and was registered is not denied.  The registered parcel also promptly despatched to the next office on 02.09.2009.   On 11.09.2009, the complainant made a complaint to the Sub Postmaster, Teynampet Post Office as per Ex.A2 was received on 14.09.2009 at the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Chennai City, Central Division.  Immediately, a reply was sent to the complainant as well as Darjeeling Division.   But the parcel was not yet received at the office of delivery i.e. Belagachi Sub Post Office.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant was informed about the action taken by the opposite parties vide Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.   The allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties has not taken any action is utter false and not correct.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the opposite parties are not liable  for the loss by way of misdelivery or delay in delivery or damages.  The complainant is entitled for only ex-gratia compensation of Rs.100/- alone. 

7.     The learned Counsel cited the decision reported in

IV (2003) CPJ 65 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

Between

The Director, Postal Services A & N Islands, Port Blair & another

-Versus-

Miss. Shymali Ganguly

Held that

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (b) – Post Office Act – Section 6 – Post Office Rules, 1933 – Rule 66 B – Postal Services – Exemption from liability – Speed Post Money Order delayed -  compensation awarded by lower Forums – Hence revision – Postal Authorities exempted from liability in case of delay, etc. Unless delay is caused fraudulently or wilful act or default – Order of lower Forums set aside – Complainant entitled to reimburse speed post charges paid”.

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the compensation claimed is imaginary.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has not insured the parcel or disclosed the contents in the parcel and the value of the article in the parcel.   Hence, the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation and the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 08^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	02.09.2009	Copy of receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A2	11.09.2009	Copy of complaint of the complainant
Ex.A3	14.09.2009	Copy of letter issued by the Senior Supt. of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division
Ex.A4	17.09.2009	Copy of representation of the complainant
Ex.A5	07.10.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A6		Copy of acknowledgment
Ex.A7	09.10.2009	Copy of reply by the Asst Director (Tech), O/o. PMC (CCR)
Ex.A8	23.11.2009	Copy of reply by the Asst Director (Tech), O/o. PMC (CCR)

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1	02.09.2009	Copy of postal receipt sent by the complainant through Registered Parcel
Ex.B2	11.09.2009	Copy of complaint by the complainant to the Post Master, Teynampet Post Office
Ex.B3	14.09.2009	Copy of intimation regarding action taken by the 4th opposite party
Ex.B4	17.09.2009	Copy of complainant’s letter to the 3rd opposite party

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT