Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/10/2006

S. Sreerangam, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 75 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post-Master General, DAK SADAN - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B. Rama Subba Reddy

29 Sep 2006

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/2006
 
1. S. Sreerangam, S/o. Anjaneyulu, Aged 75 years
R/o. 43-93A1, Kurnool
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Post-Master General, DAK SADAN
Abid Circle, Hyderabad.
Hyderabad
Andhra Pradesh
2. The Superintendent,
Head Post Office, Kurnool.
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

and

                                    Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

                                   Friday the 29th day of September,2006

                                                 CD No. 10/200

 

 

S. Sreerangam,

S/o. Anjaneyulu,

Aged 75 years,

R/o. 43-93A1,

Kurnool.   

 

                                                . . . Complainant

          -Vs-

 

The Post-Master General,

DAK SADAN, Abid Circle,

Hyderabad.

  1. The Superintendent,

Head Post Office,

Kurnool.        

                                           . . . Opposite parties

 

This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of                           Sri B. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri M. D. V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.

 

O R D E R

                             (As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)

 

1.       This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act seeking an award on the opposite party for costs and damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and torture occurred to the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party in illegal collection of penalty on 300 post cards alleging the complainant posting 300 cards for conveying thanks to all friends and relatives who attended the marriage and reception function of his son and while the post card the material on which was a type written is to be treated as mere post card as per  postal rules, the opposite party treating them as printed post cards levied penalty of Rs.11/- on each of them and one such post card which was refused by the addressee therein returned to the complainant collecting said penalty of Rs.11/- and the said state of circumstances not only constrained the complainant to express its sorry to all those persons to whom said cards were sent, but also irreparable injury to his repudiation in the circle of his friends and relatives and also mental agony .

2.       In pursuance of the receipt of the notices of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties caused its appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying any of its liability to the claim of the complainant and filing written version seeking dismissal of complaint with costs alleging the card posted was electronically typed chargeable with postal stamps of Rs.6/- and as complainant did not do so the charging of penalty was done in accordance with existing rules as departmental order No. 7- id5/ 2004 –PO dated 18.11.2004 as post card containing any matter recorded by any process intended to make more than one copy other than manually typed shall be charged as printed card and vide letter No. 1-9/2002 dated 24.5.2002 of directorate of postal services the postage of such cards were raised from Rs.3/- to Rs.6/- and rule 10 of the post office guide (part 1) obligates the making good of the difference of stamp by affixture of additional postage stamp and post card posted unpaid or insufficiently paid, as per rule 106 of the post office guide (part-1) it shall be taxable on delivery with double the pre paid rate or double the deficiency as the case may be and so said is levying, in the absence of the complainant not affixing required stamp, however inconvenience the said collection might cause to the complainant, it doesn’t amount to any deficiency of service on its part as said levying was done with any malafied intention, and the claim of the complainant as whimsical, baseless and imaginary and  aimed at making a wrongful gain.    

3.       In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.9 besides to his sworn affidavit and replies exchange to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on its sworn affidavit and replies to the interrogatories exchange besides to D.O letter No. 7-15/2004 – P.O dated 18.11.2004, letter dated 27.5.2002 of office of C.P.M.B AP circle, Hyderabad, rule 10 and 106 of post office guide (part-1).

4.       Hence the point for consideration is whether any deficiency of service of the opposite parties and any liability of the opposite parties to the complainant’s claim is made out.

5.       The Ex A.1 is a printed wedding card envisaging as invitation  by the complainant and his family to the marriage of one Dr. S. Achyuta Rao, with Dr P. Suvarna scheduled at 11.45 A.M of 12th February 2005 at Sri Gujjari Gardens HMT – Suchitra link road, Quthbullahpur. Balanagar Secunderabad and a reception at 2 P.M on 14 th February at Parinaya Function Hall, Hotel Mourya inn Bhaghanagar, Kurnool.  As the opposite parties plead its unawareness of said fact and its proof by the complainant marking the said document by complainant, in the absence of any rebuttal to it from opposite party side, is amounting to proof of the sale in reference to the material therein.

6.       The Ex A.2 marked on complainant side is a post card address to Sri Manra Sekahraiah Garu C/o. M. Srinivas Electronic and Communication Private Limited, 1-8-4/2, Kamalanagar & Mahesh Nagar, near Radhika talkies, ECIL post, Hyderabad 500062 by S. Sreerangam (Complainant) thanking the addressee for gracing the attendance of said marriage of Dr. Atchyuta Rao with Dr Suvarana and seeking good wishes to the said couple to strengthen their prospective family life.  In the absence of any rebuttal to it from opposite party side, the said Ex A.2 stands proved to the contents it envisages.

7.       The Ex A.3 is office copy of letter dated 5.1.2004 addressed by complainant to the opposite party No.2 thanking the later for the hospitality extended at him and in furnishing information sought as to the charges for posting a type written post card as chargeable not more than 50 P.s.  Noting much to discredit its correctness appears from the opposite party side, the said Ex A.3 remains proved as to its contents and as to the fact of complainant enquiring with the opposite party No.2 as to the postage a type written post card especially when the Ex A.4 – a reply to the Ex A.3 dated 5.1.2004 of the complainant – confirms to the fact alleged above to the effect that a type written post card will be in par with a hand written with post card for purpose of postal charges and the copy of C.O. Lr No. TECH/19/143/Corr. Dated 3.2.2002 communicated vide D.O Lr No. Tech .31-10/Rigs dated 9.12.2002 reproduced in enclosure to the Ex A.4 also says that no distinction to made between a matter typed as post card by manual or electronic type writer.

8.       The Ex A.5 is office copy of letter dated 23.3.2005 the original of which was said to have been addressed by Citizen Forum to the opposite party No.2 brining to the later notice as to the type written post card posted by one of its member being refused by its addressee on being levied of bearing charges of due of Rs.11/-, and seeking clarification as to whether a type written post card cannot be posted at the same cost of normal post card and would be charged extra and the Ex A.7 and Ex A.8 are reminder letters dated 12.7.2005 and

12.9.2005 as reply to Ex A.5 was said to be still awaited.

9.      The Ex A.9 is response of opposite party No.2, in continuation to its earlier letter dated 11.8.2005, to the citizen Forum as to the taxing of type written post card considering it as printed matter and the said post card being insufficiently stamped while requiring to be affixed with tamp of Rs.6/-, being containing a mere postage of Rs.0.50 Ps only, as charged for double deficiency with Rs.11/- ( i.e Rs.6- Rs. 0.50 Ps = Rs.5.50 Ps x 2 ).

10.     The said citizen Forum is not a party to this case proceedings to give any details than what its correspondence seeks.  Nor does it speak that the said letter post card was addressed by the complainant except saying it as of its member.  Nor the complainant has placed any cogent material to identify himself as the member refereed in the citizens Forums correspondence.  Hence, the Ex A.5, A.8 and A.9 bears any direct beneficial bearing on the case of the complainant.

11      The whole controversy in this case being that whether the Ex A.2 was illegally leavied penalty amounting to any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby any of their liability to the complainant’s claim, the material concerning to it is warranting appreciation.

 

12.     The Ex A.2 post card which was levied with due of Rs.11/- doesn’t bear the date on which it was addressed.  But from the complaint averments the said letter appears to have been addressed two or three days after reception held on 14.2.2005. Hence, the Ex A.2 must be of 16th or 17th February, 2005. While such is so the information sought vide Ex A.3 responded in Ex A.4 states the rule position as to type written post cards in the year 2004. Hence, unless the same rule position continues in the year 2005 is also made out in said clarification given in Ex A.4 not remains of any help to the complainant.

13.     While such is so the D.O No. 7-15/2004 –P.O dated 18.11.2004 reproduces the rule 11 (2) relating to post cards and says printed post card  typed on electronic type writer is to be deemed to contain printed communication and is to be charged Rs.6/- per post card as per postage rates specified for printed post card in rule 1, since in an electronic type writer also the typed matter can be saved a number of copies can be printed without requiring fresh typing in put.  From the circle No. TECH / 22-67/IV dated 27.5.2002 addressed to all the heads of the postal circles in state of Andhra Pradesh including Kurnool, the said tariff revision from Rs.3/- existing earlier to then was revised to Rs.6/- as mentioned at Sr. 3 of existing and revised postal tariff annexure.  Hence, the letter in Ex A.2 being of the year 2005 it is governed by the supra stated revised rates of printed post card tariff if the Ex A.2 false under the category of printed post card or electronically type written one and so the communication in Ex A.4 which is repugnant to the revised tariff rate coming into effect from 1.6.2002, leaving of any much consequence on postal department.  Further the Ex A.4 doesn’t appear to be giving any improper or misleading information as it doesn’t say that the electronically type written matter on post card shall be in par with hand written post card for the purpose of postal charges. 

14.     The Ex A.9 addressed to the citizens Forum says that the type written matter on the post card was considered as printed matter and the rate of printed post card being Rs.6/- and the said card on which due of Rs.11/-  was shown as containing only Rs. 0.50 Ps stamp only the double deficiency was charged at Rs.11/- (i.e Rs.6.00 – Rs.0.50 Ps = Rs.5.50 x 2 ).  The above said remains justified provided the type written message in said post card was established as one drown on electronic type writer.

15.     The Opposite party side except charging the Ex A.2 post card with levy of revised tariff and penalty therein for alleged deficit stamp considering the message in said post card as printed one, did not put up any cogent material on which it came to a conclusion that the said type written message on Ex A.2 was one drown on electronic type writing as to amounting to printed post card to attract the revised tariff rate which is in effect from 1.6.2002.  Therefore, in the absence of any cogent substantiating material to hold the type written message in Ex A.2 was one drown on electronic type writing amounting to printed material brining said card as printed post card chargeable under Sr. 3 of existing tariff and revised postal tariff mentioned in annexure to D.O No. 7-15/2004 – P.O dated 18.11.2004, letter No. TECH/ 22 –67 / IV dated 27.5.2002, the said card in Ex A.2 remains as a near post card containing type written message and hence there appears any justification for the said levied due of Rs.11/- on said Ex A.2.

16.     From the Ex A.6 the said due of Rs.11/- on said card was levied by the office of delivery ECIL Hyderabad at the said EX A.6 being addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Hyderabad requiring the intimation of action taken in that regard to the citizen forum it appears that the said office of delivery is under control of the said Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad who is not a party to this case.

 

17.     The said due of Rs.11/- on Ex A.2 was not levied by the opposite parties 1 and 2 but by the other who is not a party to this case proceedings the opposite party No. 2 cannot be found of any liability for the fault of said illegal imposition of due of Rs.11/- on Ex A.2 made by delivery office ECIL, Hyderabad working under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad except for the fact of the collection of said due from the complainant.

18.     As per discussion made in foregoing paras there being any justification being found for imposition of due of Rs.11/- on the Ex A.2 post card by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 who his having an overall control over the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Hyderabad under which said ECIL delivery office which imposed said due of Rs.11/- is working, the opposite party No.1 shall be liable for the fault of deficiency committed by its subordinate in improperly leavying the due on Ex A.2 and so remains liable to make good of in the form of compensation for the mental agony and costs of this litigation suffered by the complainant.

19.     As the complainant has placed only Ex A.2 and not able to prove that the other cards were also levied as Ex A.2 and its correction was made the compensation for mental agony claimed at Rs.50,000/- remains on high side.  The purport of compensation being to just compensate the inconvenience or mental agony suffered and not to enable the claimant to make money in the circumstances of the case a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant at the improperly levying of due on Ex A.2 appear to be justifiable besides to an amount of Rs.500/- as costs of the case and refund of the improperly levied due of Rs.11/-.

 

20.     Therefore, the complaint is allowed to that effect directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficiency conduct of opposite party No.1’s subordinates in improperly leavying the due of Rs.11/- on Ex A.2 with any justifiable material and costs of Rs.500/- and the opposite party No.2 to refund the Rs.11/- collected from the complainant.  Time granted for the opposite parties for compliance of the supra stated order is one month from the date of the receipt of this order.        

          Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 29th day of September, 2006.

 

 

          MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                                           For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex A.1 Wedding Card.

Ex A.2 Returned typed post card.

Ex A.3 Letter, dt 5.1.2004 addressed by complainant to Superintendent of Post

            Officer, Kurnool.

Ex A.4 Reply, dt 8.1.2004 to Ex A.3.

Ex A.5 Letter, dt 23.3.2005 addressed by complainant to opposite party No.1.

Ex A.6 Letter, dt 12.4.2005 addressed by Asst. Director, O/o Post Master

 General, Kurnool to Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Hyderabad.

Ex A.7 Letter, dt 12.7.2005 by complainant to Sr. Superintendent of Post Office,

            Hyderabad.

Ex A.8 Letter, dt 12.9.2005 by complainant to opposite party No.1

Ex A.9 Original letter, dt 28.9.2005 office of the Post Master General, Kurnool

 Region.

 

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil

 

 

 

 

                   MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

 

  1. Sri B.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
  2. Sri M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.

 

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties:

 

 

 

 

        

        

        

        

         

        

 

 

        

        

        

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B.,]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.