Orissa

Rayagada

CC/204/2016

Suil Kumar Gand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master, Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 204 / 2016.                                                       Date.   6      .     6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Sunil Kumar,S/O: Phulsing Gand, R.K.Nagar,   Po/   Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)

Cell  No. 9439250124.                                                     …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Post Master, Head post office,  Po/ Dist: Rayagada

2.The Sr. Superintendent of Post office, Koraput Division, Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.
3. The Asst. Superintendent of postal Department, Koraput.

……...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 refund of  Rs.4,000/- towards wrong delivery of article   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.2 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 the complainant was booked a mobile phone to  S-Ray Enterprises  but  at the time of delivery  the O.P.  was delivered wrong parcel  in the name of Dilip  to his mother and  was taken Rs.4,000/- instead of Sunil Kumar parcel. In fact the  complainant’s parcel No. was  CD 148635725IN.

The O.Ps in their written version clearly mentioned in para No.4 that  COD Cash on delivery postal Article No. 14865725IN for Rs.4,000/- was received at Rayagada  Head office on Dt. 12.1.2016 from the Rayagada R.M.S., Rayagada addressed to the complainant.  But another COD No. 148627154 IN for Rs.4,000/- originally addressed to Mr. Dilip was  wrongly delivered to the mother of the complainant on Dt. 14.1.2016 as alleged by the complainant.  The wrong delivery of the COD to the complainant  is attributable to official error which is conceded by  the O.Ps. 

The grievance of the complainant was considered by the O.P. No.2 and  sanction has been accorded for  refund of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the complainant  vide Memo No. F/C.C.204 of 2016 Dt. 23.10.2017 (Copies of the sanction memo  is in the file marked as Annexure-I).

 The O.Ps in their written version clearly mentioned in para No.5 due to error in official book keeping a wrong  COD was  delivered to the complainant with was not intentional. The O.Ps are committed to the  service  of the public and the O.Ps have acceded to the relief  claimed by the complainant  expeditiously within  their limits being duty  bound  and there is no deficiency in service.

This forum observed the O.Ps. after receipt of notice from the Forum promptly  have paid Rs.4,000/-  to the complainant  and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  The present case in hand the complainant is not entitled any compensation from the O.P.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

Accordingly the case stands disposed off.  There is no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me.   Pronounced on this          6 ^th.day  of   June, 2018.

 

Member.                                   Member.                                           President