Orissa

Rayagada

CC/144/2015

Sri N. Satya Narayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Head Post Mater, Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 144 / 2015                                Date.    19     .  4     . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                                                       Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                              Member.

 

Sri N.Satya Naraan, C/O: Hotel Sai International, J.K. Road, Po:J.K.Pur,      Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Head Post Master, Po/ Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The Sr. Superintendent of Post office, Koraput Division, Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.

3. The  Machavaram post office, Vijayawarda, PinNo 520004, Eleru Road, Vijayawada.

.                                                                                               ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.Ps.  :-  In  person.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non receipt mobile set which was  sent by speed post through post office for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being Noticed to the O.Ps the O.P. No.1 appeared  in person before the forum  and stated that being the operational head of Koraput postal Division is competent  to file the reply on behalf of all the   O.Ps   inter alia filed   written  version refuting the allegation made against them.The O.Ps taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                  FINDINGS.

Undisputedly Sri P.Kartik, a resident of Machavaram- 520 004, Andhrapradesh brother of the complainant had booked one speed post article at Machavaram  post office on Dt. 13.4.2015  addressed to the complainant. The  Speed post article Numbered EN 261249582 IN was received   at the  destination office  i.e. Rayagada  Head post office in good condition on  Dt.16.4.2015 and it was delivered to the complainant on the same day.  Copy of the speed post articles delivery slip of Rayagada Head post office is in the file marked  as Annexure-I.  While taking delivery of the article, the complainant satisfied himself as to intactness  of the speed post article. As per departmental guidelines, the complainant was at his liberty to seek  for open delivery  before the Postmaster, Rayagada H.O.  In case he doubted  regarding tampering  of the  speed post article enroute. Since he did not raise such thing during delivery.  It is evident that the speed post article addressed to the complainant has been delivered in good condition.

In the present case, the complainant has alleged that  after opening of the parcel, he found a concrete piece inside, in place of a mobile phone mailed by his brother to him.

In the above context Postal authorities in their written version contended that  they are no way concerned with the content  of the speed post article apart from their fundamental service of its safe transmission. The O.Ps  further contended  they have transmitted the speed post article carefully and it was delivered to the complainant in tamper free  condition on Dt. 16.4.2015,  which is admitted by the complainant. In case of any suspicion over the condition of the speed post article wrap, the complainant  was at liberty to ask for taking open delivery in front of the Postmaster, Rayagada H.O., which he did not elect. Undoubtedly the speed post article was delivered to the complainant in  good condition and the O.Ps have discharged their  basic duty of delivery. The O.Ps are in no way concerned with the content of the speed post article.

The O.Ps vehemently  argued in their written version that the allegation of the complainant that he found a piece of stone inside the speed post article  in place of a mobile phone sent to him which is not acceptable as he did not open before the postal official or taken open delivery.  The contention of the complainant stating tampering of the speed post article is not viable as he has taken delivery  of the speed post article in good and intact condition. The O.Ps. again vehemently  argued the complainant has alleged  regarding intentional mischief by  the O.Ps which in his counterfeit submission to  gain consideration from the hon’ble forum  which speaks of his immorality. The O.Ps are ignorant of the content of the speed post article and the contentions averred by the complainant is not sustainable in the eye of law.

On perusal  of the record  this forum observed  the  case involves complicated  question of facts .

            While considering the grievances of the complainant  we rely  the decision, It is held and reported  in CPR  1991  (1) page -2  the Hon’ble  National Commission  where in   observed  “Section 2(i) ©- complaint petition- complicated  issues of fact involving    taking of oral and documentary evidence – cannot   be determined under this act- Civil  suit proper remedy- the procedure for disposal of  complaints   under the act  has been laid down in  the  Section – 13   of act sub-section –II,  III of the section shows  beyond doubt  that the statute does not  contemplated the determination  of complicated issues of  fact involving   taking of elaborate oral evidence and  adducing voluminous  documents  evidence  and detailed  scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. The Hon’ble  Commission   further observed   It is true that  the forums  constituted under the  act are vested with the  power to  examine witness on oath and to  order discovery and production of documents.  But  such power is to be exercised  in case  where the   issues involve are simple, such  as the  defective quality  of any goods  purchased or any short coming  are inadequacy in the   quality  nature of manner of performance  of service  which the respondent  as contracted to perform for consideration.  The  present case  can not be determined without   taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. 

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

ORDER.

            In resultant the complaint petition stands dismissed.        The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed off.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        19 th. Day of    April,  2018.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                              President