Complaint filed on: 31.03.2016

Complaint Disposed on:30.11.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

COMPLAINT NO.20/2016

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

:PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

H.S.Rudrappa

Retired Administrative Officer

Aged about 67 years,

5^th Cross, “Rudrakshi Nilaya”

Basaveshwara Street,

Jayanagara,

Chikkamagaluru – 577 101.

(By Sri/Smt. H.S.Rudrappa in person)

V/s

OPPONENT:

1.     The Post Master,

        Head Post Office,

        Department of the Posts,

        Naidu Street, Chikmagalur-01.

2.     Superintending Archaeologist,

        Archaeological Survey of India,

        Kendriya Bhavan,

        Lucknow Circle,

        9^th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj,

        Lucknow, U.P. – 226 024.

(OP1 By Sri/Smt. C.J.Manjunatha, G.P.)

(OP No.2 – Ex-parte)

By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,

:O R D E R:

The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OPS alleging deficiency in service in serving the registered post in delay to the addressee.  Hence, prays for direction against the OP No.1 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with litigation expenses and other damages.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is that:

The complainant booked one registered postal cover with OP No.1 on 03/02/2016 by paying Rs.32/- for the purpose of sending to the addressee situated at Licknow in Uttar Pradesh State.  The said registered post was delivered to the addressee on 29/02/2016 after lapse of nearly 26 days.  The said postal cover was containing important documents to sanction fixed medical allowance of Rs.500/- per month with effect from 01/01/2016 to the complainant by the Department. 

The complainant further alleged that he made a telephonic conversation with OP No.2 on 16/02/2016 with respect to the delivery of the said registered post and in that regard the said concerned section had informed the complainant that the said registered post not yet received.  Accordingly, the complainant sent another set of documents to the OP No.2 on 16/02/2016 itself.  The complainant constrained to send the same documents for the second time to the addressee due to non delivery of the registered post sent on 03/02/2016.  Hence, the complainant suffered mental agony and OP made the complainant to make unnecessary correspondence and waste of valuable time.   Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint with the first OP in writing with a request to investigate the matter.  After lapse of 53 days, the first OP sent a reply on 24/03/2016 confirming the postal article was delivered to the address on 29/02/2016 i.e. after lapse of nearly 26 days.  But no satisfactory reply was furnished in the said letter except sating that the article was delivered on 29/02/2016.  Normally the registered post is supposed to deliver to the addressee within five days, but in this complaint the OP had will-fully not served the registered post within required time.  The act of employee of the OP No.1 is clearly shows a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.        

The complainant further alleged that the OP No.1 used to collect extra charges and gave assurance to the sender that the article will be delivered within the specified period of time.  In omission of doing so would definitely be the deficiency in service, as because the complainant tendered a postal cover on 03/02/2016 that was not delivered even after written complaint made by complainant and they have gave a reply only on 24/03/2016 confirming the delivery of the said registered post on 29/02/2016.  Hence, OP No.1 rendered a deficiency in service in not delivering the postal cover well within time.  Hence, complainant prays for direction against OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with other expenses as prayed above.

3.     After service of notice OP No.1 appeared and filed the version through his counsel.  The OP No.2 not appeared, before this Forum, hence OP No.2 placed Ex-parte. 

OP No.1  in his version has contended that there is no deficiency in service or willful fraudulent act by this OP in delivery of the registered letter sent by the complainant to second OP.  The said registered letter sent by complainant was safely delivered to second OP on 29/02/2016.  But they have not assured any specified time to deliver the registered post at the time of accepting the postal cover for delivery.  This OP has made an acknowledgment to the complainant with respect to the delivery of the registered letter to second OP on 02/03/2016 within 13 days of the complaint received by complainant and not on 24/03/2016 as stated in the complaint. 

The OP No.1 further contended that there is no contract between complainant and this OP to deliver the registered post dated: 03/02/2016 within specified time and this OP is not an agent of the complainant.  This OP only providing postal service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and Rules and performing the statutory service to the public.  The service rendered by this OP is only a public service and not for benefit or for commercial purpose.

The OP No.1 further contended that the Clause-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 clearly provides exemption to the Government/1^st opponent from liability of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal articles in the transmission of the article/letter etc.  Hence, this complaint made by the complainant is not maintainable under law.  This OP is not liable to pay any compensation or damages to the complainant.  There is no any willful negligence or fraudulent act on the part of this OP in delivering the registered letter sent by complainant to second OP on 03/02/2016.  The delay caused in delivering the registered letter is the delay in normal course of transmission, but they have safely delivered the registered the letter with a due care to second OP on 29/02/2016.  Hence, there is no cause of action arose in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.      

4.     The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P6.  The OP-1 also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 & R2.

5.     Heard the arguments:

6.     In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

2.  Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1: Negative
2. Point No.2: As per Order below. 

: R E A S O N S :

POINT NOs. 1 & 2:

8.     The case of the complainant is that he booked one registered post with acknowledgment due on 03/02/2016 which was addressed to the OP No.2 and at the time of accepting the registered post, the OP No.1 assured to deliver the registered letter within the stipulated time of 5-6 days.  But OP No.1 had delivered the said registered letter with a delay of 26 days.  Due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and constrained to send another set of documents to OP No.2.  The complainant further alleged that after booking registered a letter on 03/02/2016, he made telephonic conversation with OP No.2 with respect to the delivery of the registered post.  But the said office had not received any registered post sent by complainant.  Hence, he constrained to send another set of documents to OP No.2. Hence, the complainant prays for damages and compensation for the deficiency in service rendered by OP No.1 in delivering the registered letter after delay of 26 days.  

9.     On contrary, OP No.1 had taken a contention that there is no specific contract entered between the complainant and this OP with respect to the delivery of the registered post within the specified time and they are rendering only public service, but not for any profit making or for commercial purpose.  The service rendered by them subject to Indian Post Office Act 1898 and as per Clause-6 of the said Act they are not liable to pay any compensation for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of articles in the transmission.  Anyhow this OP had delivered the letter sent by complainant on 29/02/2016 and they have delivered the letter safely.  Hence, submits no deficiency in service.

10.   On going through the documents produced by the complainant and OP No.1 there is no dispute that the letter sent by complainant on 03/02/2016 was delivered to the address i.e. OP No.2 on 29/02/2016.  The only dispute raised by the complainant is that there is a delay of 26 days in delivering the registered post to the addressee. In this regard, the complainant had relied on the decision reported in CTJ Page 140 delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission, New Delhi and submits that the postal department has rendered a deficiency in service in not delivering the registered post to the person.  Hence, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission, New Delhi held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Postal Department and further submits that in this case also the OP owed to deliver the registered letter within 5-6 days, but they have delivered the letter after lapse of 26 days and therefore submits there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP and prays for compensation. 

 11.  The learned Advocate for OP vehemently argued that the Act provided the immunity to the OP No.1 with respect to the delay, non delivery of the article or mis delivery or loss of the letter during the transmission.  Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Further, the OP counsel submitted that the letter sent by complainant was delivered safely to the addressee.

12.   Of-course, the complainant also admits that the letter was served to the addressee.  We found there is no any abnormal delay in serving the letter to the addressee.  The delay of 26 days is not abnormal delay.  There may be a chances of delay in transmission from Karnataka to Uttar Pradesh.  Hence, we found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  At the same time the complainant failed to establish that he suffered any loss due to delivery of the letter after lapse of 26 days to the addressee.  The complainant has not produced any documents or any materials before this Forum to show that he suffered loss due to delay of service of the letter. 

13.   Apart from that, the OP has produced the Indian Post Office Act 1898 which clearly shows that Clause-6 of the Act has provided no liability to the OP No.1 when the registered article was suffered any loss, inability to deliver, mis delivery or delay in delivery of the articles.  Hence, considering the Clause-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 we are of the opinion that the OP has not rendered any deficiency in service.  Further to prove the case of OP, the counsel for OP has furnished three decisions as under:-

1. AIR 1980 SC 431
2. Order in Revision Petition No.4967/2008
3. Order in Revisions Petition No.4567/2012

On the above said three said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, have provided immunity to the Postal Department under the Indian Post Act and dismissed the allegations made by persons for delay in delivery of the articles.  Hence, basing on the said decisions also, we are of the opinion that the OP No.1 has not rendered any deficiency in service in delivering the article sent by complainant.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint.  As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:- 

: O R D E R :

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2. Send free copies of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 30^th day of November 2016).

                                 (RAVISHANKAR)

                                      President

(B.U.GEETHA)                                         (H. MANJULA) 

     Member                                                    Member