West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/531/2014

Priya Sankar Bose. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master, Haltu P.O. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _531_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING : 31.10.2014                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _31.08.2015__

 

Present                                     President        :     Udayan Mukhopadhyay

                                                 Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              : Priya Sankar Bose, 87A/1, Bosepukur Road, P.& P.S Kasba, Kolkata-42.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            : The Post Master, Haltu Post Office, Haltu, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-78

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that  he sent a speed post letter (Notice) to India Infoline Ltd. on  9.8.2014 paying postal charges Rs.17/- but the addressee reported non-receipt. To ascertain the correct position of delivery he visited the Post Office on 1.9.2014 stood before speed post counter and requested the Desk Assistant to give a print in respect of delivery of speed post ,which was not handed over. . Having failed to get the required delivery confirmation print he has to enter the inside to Post Master who also was not able to render the service and asked the complainant to drop an application to other counter ,thereby the Post Master passed the bulk and then next counter who also did not receive the letter and asked to wait outside the counter and after some time received the letter of request for delivery confirmation slip. His computer desk was idle and there was no person before his counter still desk Assistant refused to put on the computer for the slip print. Again He went to Post Master who assured to send by post in two days time without asking desk assistant to issue the same. The request confirmation computerized slip till now was not sent. The matter was brought to the notice of P.M.G but it yielded no result and hence this case for series of restrictive practice, defects/deficiency and established unfair trade practice ,praying for exemplary compensation.

The O.P appeared and filed written version denying all material allegations contending inter alia that the speed post article bearing no.EW280181171IN was booked by the complainant from O.P Haltu Post Office on 9.8.2014 and it was duly delivered to the addressee on 11.8.2014 and there was no deficiency of service on their part. The positive case of the O.P is that speed post article in question was booked without proof of delivery and complainant did not avail the said facility due to negligence of the complainant. The O.P also has stated  that delivery information of speed post article in question was/is available in India Post webside w.w.w .Indiapost .gov.in and it is accessible and the same was provided to the complainant mentioning the booking receipt. There is no deficiency in service on its part and O.P prays for dismissal of the case.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.             Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            In the instant case, the complainant after paying necessary charges amounting to Rs.17/- sent a letter through Speed post to one India Infoline Ltd. on 9.8.2014. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the complainant is a “Consumer” and the O.P is a “Service Provider” under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the COPRA 1986.

            After going through the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit ,questionnaire and re-ply of both the parties and hearing minutely the argument of both parties, it is crystal clear that complainant visited the O.Ps’ office on 1.9.2014 to ascertain the correct position of delivery of the letter (Notice) in question. As per the complainant, even after the request of the complainant, the concerned employee of the Post Office did not hand over necessary document to convey the information regarding delivery of the letter. Then, he submitted a request letter for redressal of quench of the thrust of his query. O.P received the letter of request for information regarding delivery of notice but did not serve the same to the complainant. On the other hand , Ld. Advocate for the O.P has submitted that on 9.8.2014 the letter in question was posted and same is duly delivered to the addressee on 11.8.2014 and also submitted that delivery information of speed post article in question is available in India post website www.indiapost.govt.in and it is accessible by everyone and the O.P office provided the same to the complainant mentioning the booking receipt.

            But it is observed by this Forum that O.P has miserably failed to prove their contention that necessary information in question was duly provided to the complainant. It is also the fact that being one of the largest and oldest organization of Postal Department of India, the O.P has to render services to crores of people ,out of which some are computer literate and many are computer illiterate. Therefore, it is expected from the O.P ,being a part of such esteemed organization, to perform in such a manner that ordinary people will not be in dark even after sending any letter/notices through speed post about the track report i.e. status report of that letter/document.

            In the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P did not render proper services to the complainant as they did not inform the complainant about the status of sending letter in question. This activity of the O.P amounts to dereliction of duty and is considered by this Forum as deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant. O.P is strictly directed not to repeat this practice any more and for this inaction  and deficiency in service of the O.P, complainant has to suffer mental agony, tremendous harassment and O.P is liable to aptly compensate the complainant for that.  It is also opined by this Forum that to restrain the aforesaid deficiency in service and inaction of the O.P for the interest of crores of people to whom the postal services are being rendered and for better interest of the consumer at large, an exemplary cost should be imposed upon the O.P as punitive damage.

Thus all the points are discussed and are in favour of the complainant.

            Therefore, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on  contest with cost.

The O.P is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and also to pay  litigation cost of Rs.1000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

O.P is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damage to the Consumer legal Aid Fund within 30 days from this date.

All the orders should be paid within 30 days from this date, failing which, O.P has to pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant from the date of default till realization and the said amount of fine @ Rs. 100/- per day  should be realized from the salary of the concerned O.P Post Master .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                               

Ordered

That the complaint case is allowed on  contest with cost.

The O.P is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and also to pay  litigation cost of Rs.1000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

O.P is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damage to the Consumer legal Aid Fund within 30 days from this date.

All the orders should be paid within 30 days from this date, failing which, O.P has to pay Rs.100/- per diem to the complainant from the date of default till realization and the said amount of fine @ Rs. 100/- per day  should be realized from the salary of the concerned O.P Post Master .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President