Date of Filing 02.01.2023

                                                                                                            Date of Disposal: 30.10.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                        …….PRESIDENT

                THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                               ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.09/2023

THIS MONDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

Mr.Nambi Lakshmanan,

No.14, V.M.Nagar Annexe,

60 feet Road, Thiruvallur 602 001.                                                       ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.The Post Master,

    Head Post Office, Thiruvallur.

2.Superintendent of Post Office

    Kancheepuram.                                                                              .…..Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                 :  Mr.V.Srinivasaragavan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                           :  Mr.S.Sugadev, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.10.2023in the presence of Advocate Mr.V.Srinivasaragavan counsel for the complainant and Mr.S.Sugadev, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to non delivery of the parcel booked by the complainant along with a prayer to direct them to send the parcel CT 76792611 to the complainant by the opposite parties at their cost, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that the complainant had booked three parcels addressed to one Balaji Vijaykumar in Victoria State, Australia on 07.02.2022 and 08.02.2022.  Out of three parcels two were received in Australia while parcel CT 767962611 was returned stating that post code was given wrongly. Hence the complainant had sent a letter to the 2^nd opposite party asking to find out where the fault lies.  But the opposite parties did not care to find out. Complainant himself found the fault that the pin code given by the opposite parties as 2482 was wrong.  It should be 3335. Opposite parties was demanding Rs.1380/- for return of the parcel. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice on 28.11.2023 to the opposite parties to rectify the mistake and send the parcel to Australia to the addressee therein.  But so far the opposite parties did not respond.  Hence alleging deficiency in service Rs.25,000/- was claimed as compensation in the present complaint and to direct the parcel CT 76792611 to be sent by the opposite parties at their cost along cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

3. The complainant had booked a Registered parcel vide Article No.CT076796111in weighing 7700 grams at Thiruvallur Head Post Office on 08.02.2022 to Mr.Balaji Vijayakumar, 4 Willow Bank Circuit, Thornhill Park, Victoria:3335, Australia by paying postage of Rs.4110/-.  The parcel was returned due to reason that the address on the item was incomplete. It did not include a suburb or post code and without either of them the parcel was not able to be delivered to the addressee by Australian Post. The return postage of Rs.1380 was levied by Foreign Post for returning the parcel and the due amount has to be collected from complainant while delivering the returned parcel to the complainant. On 25.03.2022 Thiruvallur Head Post Office attempted to deliver of the returned parcel to the complainant. The complainant refused to take delivery of the returned parcel by paying the return postage due charges levied on the parcel. If no instructions were recorded on the parcel and it the parcel remains undelivered for any reason, it would be returned to the sender who was liable to pay the return charges for its inward journey. As per clause 102 of Post Office Guide II “undelivered outward parcels and instructions to be sender: Unlike in/an foreign parcels were not returned to the sender free of charges. In the case of norow 1”, delivery and return to the sender, he becomes liable to pay postage charges for journey of the parcel generally equivalent to the outward charges and in many cases charges levied abroad for warehousing, repacking, customs clearance fee, etc. Australian Post replied that the address on the item was incomplete.  It does not include a suburb or a postcode.  Without either, we are unable to deliver the article.  Based on the reply the Superintendent of Post Offices, kanchipuram Division replied to the complainant vide letter No.D/int Mails/Digs dated 21.04.2022 through registered post vide Article No.RT239091802 in dated 22.04.2022 and got delivered on 25.04.2022. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division had made efforts to enquire the reason for return of the said parcel on receipt of complaint from Australian Post through Foreign Post, Chennai and had replied the result of enquiry to the complainant. It was evidently proven that the sender has not given complete address for the article CT076796111IN.  Hence the item could not be delivered to the addressee in Australia.  The complainant had mentioned that the pin code given by opposite parties was 2482 and wrong and it should be 3335.  Whereas, the pin code was normally written by the sender only on the article and not by the staff at the booking counter of Post Office.  Further the complainant has not submitted any proof in support of his allegations that the opposite parties have given the pin code for the article wrongly.  Thus the claim of the complainant was found to be false and baseless.  Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9 were submitted. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1.  Whether the non delivery of the parcel booked by the complainant to Australia for the reason that the address is insufficient and the claim of return charges of Rs.1380/- from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

5. Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

1. Copy of Postal Booking receipts was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Parcel sent to wrong pin code 2482 copy was marked as Ex.A2;
3. RP2 demanding Rs.1380/- dated 24.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Clarification letter by sought complainant dated 25.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant dated 21.04.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Letter issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party dated 26.04.2022 was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant dated 10.05.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 28.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Postal acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A9;

On the side of opposite parties the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

10. Email sent by Superintendant of Post Office, Kanchipuram Division to Foreign Post, Chennai dated 04.04.2022 was marked as Ex.B1;
11. Letter sent by Superintendent of Post Office, Kanchipuram Division to the complainant dated 21.04.2022 was marked as Ex.B2;
12. Email sent by Superintendant of Post Office, Kanchipuram Division to Foreign Post, Chennai dated 29.04.2022 was marked as Ex.B3;
13. Email sent by Foreign Post, Chennai to Superintendant of Post Office, Kanchipuram Division dated 29.04.2022 was marked as Ex.B4;
14. Letter sent by Superintendant of Post Office, Kanchipuram Division to the complainant dated 17.05.2022 was marked as Ex.B5;

6. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the both parties.

7. The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that out of 3 parcels booked by him to Australia only 2 parcels got delivered and one parcel was not delivered.  It was contended by him that as the Pin Code was written wrongly by the Officials in Australia it was not delivered and it was also not returned to him and that Rs.1380/- was claimed for returning the parcel.  The main allegation is that the opposite parties did not take proper steps to see that the parcel is delivered and hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for non delivery of parcel the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, the opposite parties disputing the complaint allegations it was submitted that 4 parcels were sent out which 2 parcels were delivered.  It is stated by him that it is the complainant’s duty to write the correct address on the parcel.  He quoted the Indian Post Office Act 1898 section 6 to state that no liability could be imposed upon the Department for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless it was caused fraudulently by wilful or default act.  He also cited clause 98 of the Post Office Guide Part II with regard to the instructions to be given for disposal of the parcel and also for payment of charges if not the parcel is delivered but to be returned to the sender.  It is their submission that for every complaint made by the complainant the Department had taken steps to find out the fault.  Thus submitting that the parcel was not delivered only due to the act of complainant, sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

9. On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials the factum of sending parcel by the complainant and delivery of two parcels is not disputed by either parties. Issue relates only to non delivery of one parcel.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the parcel was not delivered due to the wrong mentioning of Pin code number by the Postal Officials.  However, on verification of document Ex.A1 we could see that for only one parcel the Pin Code has been written as 3335.  However, in Ex.A2 the Postal Code has been mentioned as 2482.  Thus, on verification of the documents submitted by the complainant we could see that the opposite parties had sent an email to the Foreign Post at Chennai to clarify the charges claimed from the complainant an amount of Rs.1380/- for his returned parcel.  Vide Ex.B2 after verification with the Australia Post it is informed to the complainant that as the address on the item is incomplete and as it does not include a post code it could not be delivered.  Further Ex.B4 the email sent by the opposite parties seeking clarification also sufficiently proves that action was taken on the complaints made by the complainant.  In Ex.B5 it has been clearly mentioned as follows;

Please refer to your letter cited under reference on the above subject.  In this regard, the reason for non delivery of the Parcel CT7679626111IN was enquired at Foreign Post Office, Chennai as you have represented that appropriate address was written with correct postcode.

In this connection, the following reply received from Foreign Post, Chennai

“We are not in the position to prove whether the address details on the parcel is correct, we may perhaps accept the reply of Australia Post.  If still the sender alleges that the address on the parcel is correct, please advise the addressee through the sender to register a complaint at the destination post”.

As it was replied by the Australia post that the address on the item is incomplete and it does not include a suburb or a postcode, it is requested to register the complaint at Australia post by the addressee as per the instruction of Foreign Post Office, Chennai.

This is for your kind information.  Inconvenience caused is regretted.

10. Thus in the facts and circumstances it could not be presumed that there was inaction or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on the complaints made by the complainant to the opposite parties as rightly pointed out by them.  It is the prime duty of the complainant / sender to provide a correct address for delivery of the parcel.  It is also made clear by the opposite parties by quoting clause 98 of Post Office Guide Part II wherein it has been clearly mentioned that if the parcel remains undelivered it will be returned to the sender who is liable to pay the return charges for its inward journey. Therefore claiming an amount of Rs.1380/- as charges for return of the parcel by the opposite parties could not be found fault with.  Further it was not sufficiently proved by the complainant that the Pin Code was wrongly mentioned by the Postal Officials in Australia.  Also section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 relieves the opposite parties from any liability for any loss, delay or damage etc of the parcel unless the same was caused fraudulently or wilful act etc. In such facts and circumstances we find no error in the claim of inward charges of Rs.1380/- from the complainant for the undelivered parcel and also that no deficiency in service has been committed by the opposite parties in the matter of non delivery of the parcel.  The complainant thus failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

11. As we have held above that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief in this complaint.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 30^th day of October 2023

 -Sd-                                                                                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

    -Sd-                                                                                                                       -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT