Motilal Jhalani,

Flat no. 302, 3^rd floor,

Radha Krishna Apartment,

near Hans Khali Pul,

opposite Amar Jyoti Apartment, Baultolla,

Howrah – 711109.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

The Post Master,

Daneshek Lane Post Office,

Daneseklane, Howrah,

PIN – 711109.----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIE.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Motilal Jalani, by filing a petition  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation along with other cost alleging deficiency in service.  

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant had been receiving  many postal

articles in a delayed period sent through O.P. vide annexures C & D i.e., pages 60, 10. Being aggrieved, complainant sent one letter to O.P. vide Annexure ‘A’ asking them to give clarification regarding such delay. But O.P. remained silent without giving any reply. Thereafter complainant, on  his own, tried to trace the track record of those letters sent to him by different senders. And he found that even if one speed post letter vide Annexure page 6 being no. EM 75111499 51N, was received by O.P. on 01-03-2013 vide page 8, but it was delivered to him only on 07-03-2013 with the postal remark ‘Addressee Absent – intimation served’ for continuous four days. And the same thing took place in respect of a registered letter vide Annexures 10 being no. RM 0463114151N which was sent on 23-01-2013 which was received by the complainant on 30-01-2013. And it is also alleged by the complainant that the delay occurred with respect to the delivery of some more articles  for which he suffered a lot. Although complainant informed the post office regarding his change of address, the delay in delivery of postal articles took place only for the negligence of the concerned deliveryman or postman for which O.P. as a ‘Principal’ is liable and responsible. Complainant even asked for the clarification from O.P. vide Annexure pages 4 & 5. But O.P did not care to reply to his those letters till the filing of this case. Being aggrieved complainant filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.                  Notices were served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.  We have carefully

gone through the written version viz. para nos. 4,5,6,10 & 11 and noted their contents. It is categorically stated by O.P. that as per Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clause 6  Government shall not incur any liability by reason of delay of any postal articles as per post office  Guide Part I clause 170. And, if any loss occurs, compensation may be given only to the sender of the article if complaint is preferred within stipulated time of three months of the date of posting. And in case of speed post article, only postage is refundable. Even it is stated by O.P. that as soon as they received the information regarding change of address from the complainant, Sub-Post Master of Danesh Sk. Lane Post Office, immediately directed beat postman, namely , Sri  Debabrata Ghosh, to deliver all the redirected or properly addressed letters to the complainant. Even in case of the letters like EM 7511149951 N & RM 0463114151 N, delivery attempts were made continuously, but due to absence of the complainant, the articles could not be delivered immediately. There was no intentional delay on the part of O.P. and no loss was incurred by the complainant. It is a fact that one has to state in details of the nature and quantum of loss, whether it is financial or mental, caused by the action or non action of O.P. The deliveryman or postman is an employee of O.P. and why he should put a remark like “Addressee absent – intimation served”. As a  government  employee he is expected to be quite aware of the fact that if it is proved to be a lie, he has to face severe consequence. It is our common knowledge that due to change of address, sometimes delivery of postal article gets delayed. But at the same time, it is also not expected that such delay would continue for a long time. O.P. should keep it in mind that their service is very urgent in nature and people’s deep emotion as well as necessity is associated with their service. O.P. should have been little more careful in dealing with the cases like complainant’s. From Annexure 6, we can see that some important documents which are ‘Private and Confidential’, were despatched by the Bank to the complainant. But complainant received the same after long six days. If really intimation was served by the concerned postman, complainant, being a responsible person, would have gone to the office of the O.P. immediately. At the same time, it is also a fact that complainant could not substantiate his quantum of financial loss for such delayed delivery of the articles in question. But O.P. being a service provider, is expected to be more careful and dutiful in providing service to the people. Accordingly, the case  succeeds against O.P. in part with cost but without any compensation.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 158 of 2013 ( HDF 158 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month  from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual realization.   

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah