BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri.Patel Praveen Kumar,
Male Member.
Tuesday, the 21st day of June, 2011.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.47/2010
Between:
Dr.K.Shivaram, S/o.K.Ram Narahari,
Age:30 years, Occu:Medical Practioner,
R/o.H.No.3-378, Ellanda Village,
Wardannapet Mandal,
Warangal Dist. …Complainant
And
1. The Post Master,
Head Post Office, N Speed Post Center,
Warangal – 506 002
2. The Superintendent of Post offices,
Warangal Division,
Warangal – 506 011. …Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :: Sri A. Veerabhadraiah, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :: Sri L. Jalander Reddy, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This complaint is filed by the complainant Dr.K.Shivaram against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay the compensation/damages amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, grant interest on the award amount, award Rs.10,000/- towards costs and legal expenses of the case.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant isthat the complainant with an intention to take admission in N.T.R. University for M.D.(Ayurveda) Course for 2009-2010, obtained application form by paying Rs.600/- and sent the same to the Principal, Dr.B.R.K.R., Govt.Ayurvedic College, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad through Speed Post from Opposite Party No.1 vide Receipt No. SP EN 624469333 IN dated:04-06-2009 by paying charges of Rs.29/-. The Personnel of Opposite Party No.1 assured that the article will be delivered at the destination within 24 hours. On 08-06-2009 the Officials of Opposite Party No.1 tendered the article for delivery, but the addressee refused to receive it since the last date was expired and returned the said letter to complainant on 11-06-2009. Immediately the complainant lodged the complaint vide letter dated:29-06-2009 to Opposite Party No.2, for which a vague reply was given vide letter dated: 26-08-09 with reasons for causing delay. The said reply of Opposite Party No.2 is clearly establishing gross negligence and deficiency of service on their part. On 12-11-2009 the complainant submitted a complaint before Dock Adalath at Hyderabad complaining the damage caused to him due to negligence of Opposite Party No.1 by claiming compensation, but in vein. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter dated: 17-02-2010 informing that Rs.29/- paid by the complainant will be refunded as compensation, but the same was not accepted. Due to non dispatch of the article intime to the addressee by Opposite Parties, the complainant lost the opportunity for getting seat in M.D.(Ayurveda) Course and suffered considerable loss. The complainant got issued legal notice dated:10-06-2010 to both Opposite Parties demanding to pay damages/compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, for which no reply is received. The act of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence filed this complaint praying to direct the Opposite Parties to pay damages/compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and to award Rs.10,000/- towards costs and expenses.
The Opposite Parties filed the Written Version stating that the complainant who is resident of Ellanda Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District had sent one article No.EN624469333 IN, under speed post on 04-06-2009 addressed to the Principal, Dr.BRKR Government Ayurvedic College, SR Nagar, Hyderabad–38 from National Speed Post Centre (NSPC), Warangal. He preferred a complaint dt:29-06-2009 stating that the said article was not delivered to the addressee upto 06-06-2009 which is delivered to the addressee college on 08-06-2009, but the addressee refused to take delivery and the same was returned to the complainant on 11-06-2009, that if Speed Post Section of Warangal Head Post office told him that the article could not reach Hyderabad on 05-06-2009, he would have gone personally and requested for the reasons for delay in delivery. The said complaint was registered as 50600001924. The article was dispatched from Warangal on 04-06-2009 itself and it was reached the speed post centre, Hyderabad on 05-06-2009 and there from it was not dispatched from there to SR Nagar Post Office on 05-06-2009, 06-06-2009 and 07-06-2009 (Sunday) and it was sent to SR Nagar post office on 08-06-2009, but the addressee refused to take delivery of the said article and the same was returned back and redelivery to the complainant on 11-06-2009. The Opposite Parties are not aware for what reasons the speed post was returned to the addressee.
Further the Opposite Parties stated that the speed post article was correctly dispatched from NSPC, Warangal on the same day of its booking i.e., on 04-06-2009. It reached Speed Post Centre, Hyderabad on 05-06-2009, but it could not be dispatched on 05-06-2009 and 06-06-2009 due to heavy work at SPC, Hyderabad. There was delay in dispatch of speed post article to the destination Officer, SR Nagar Post Office, Hyderabad, but dispatched on 08-06-2009 (07-06-2009 being Sunday). This delay on the part of the postal authorities at Hyderabad is not a fraudulent or willful act. This is a case not involving loss of the article or loss of contents or damage to the contents. It is only a case of delay fault occurred at Hyderabad speed post centre, due to heavy work there resulting in delay in dispatch of the same to the destination Post Office immediately on the delay of its receipt. As per the rules of the department, compensation equal to the speed post charges paid is required to be refunded to the sender as the article was not delivered to the addressee in time, but refused by the addressee on the ground that the article was presented after the last date (06-06-2009) fixed for receipt of such application. As per Section-6 of the Indian Post office Act, the Postal Department shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and no Officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In this case, the delay in dispatch of the speed post article to the destination post office, was occurred only due to heavy work, but not on account of any fraudulent or willful act or default of the service. In this connection, the decision of the national Commission in RP No.15/1997 between Head Postmaster, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshethra, Haryana & Others Vs. Vijayaratnam Agarwal may kindly be referred to wherein the following was held by the Hon’ble National Commission., “in the case of delay of speed post articles beyond the norms determined by the Department of Posts from time to time, compensation will be provided which shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid. It also provided that in the event of loss of speed post articles or loss of contents or damage to the contents, compensation shall be double the amount of composite fee speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. It would be thus send that maximum compensation statutory fixed is Rs.1,000/- which can be granted when there is loss of speed post articles or loss of its contents or even damage to the contents.”
In the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed by him. Already speed post charges of Rs.29/- was sent to the complainant as per the 75th Dock Adalath vide orders dt:17-02-2010, but the complainant did not take the amount and on the other hand, filed the complaint before the Forum with a malafide intention to gain financially by abusing the process of law. The Opposite Parties are discharging their duties under the statute and there is no negligence on their part and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as claimed by him and the Opposite Parties requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of Opposite Party No.2 D.Ramanaiah filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2) If so, to what Relief?
Point No.1:-
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
Now this Forum has to see whether there is any deficiency and negligence on the part of Opposite Parties to serve the article i.e. letter of the complainant to the addressee.
In this case the complainant stated that he completed Ayurvedic Medico i.e. B.A.M.S. course and he passed the same and he has an intention to do M.D.(Ayurveda) Course, obtained the application from N.T.R. University by paying requisite cost of Rs.600/- for admission in to the M.D., (Ayurveda) Course for 2009-2010 and sent the said application to the concerned i.e. to the Principal, Dr.B.R.K.R., Govt.Ayurvedic College, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad through Speed Post from the Opposite Party No.1, Head Post Office, Warangal speed post centre, vide Receipt No.SP EN 624469333 IN on 04-06-2009 at 12.40 noon by paying requisite charges of Rs.29/-. At the time of booking the article i.e. the cover containing the application of the complainant, the said Post Office Speed Post Counter incharge of the Opposite Party No.1 informed and assured that the booked article i.e. the cover will be delivered at the destination addressee within 24 hours. But unfortunately the letter was not served to the addressee within 24 hours and the Opposite Parties i.e. Postal Staff tried to serve the same article on 08-06-2009, but the addressee refused to receive the same as the time is over.
Whether there is any delay from postal authorities or not.
We verified the documents and as per Ex.A-6 i.e. a letter sent by the Postal Authorities, Warangal Division to the complainant, the contention of the letter is that as per the reply available in Website, the said speed post article cannot dispatched to concerned so on 05-06-2009, 06-06-2009 by speed post centre. The inconvenience caused to you very much regretted. We verified the 2009 year calendar, 04-06-2009 is Thursday, 05-06-2009 & 06-06-2009 are Friday & Saturday, 07-06-2009 is Sunday and 08-06-2009 is Monday. So nearly there is a delay of three (3) days, even one (1) day delayed because Sunday i.e. 07-06-2009 there are two (2) days delayed. Actually the article has to reach the addressee by 05-06-2009 or 06-06-2009. But unfortunately this article reached the Dr.B.R.K.R., Govt.Ayurvedic College, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad on 08-06-2009, then the officials of the college refused.
We accept the Ex.A-6 and come to conclusion that there is a delay and negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Hyderabad Post Office. When there is a deficiency and negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2, certainly the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
The Opposite Parties Advocate simply stated that there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of them and he explained about the delay of 2 days due to heavy work and he further argued that as per Section-6 of the Indian Postal Act, the Postal Department shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and no Officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In this case, the delay in dispatch of the speed post article to the destination Post Office was occurred only due to heavy work, but not on account of any fraudulent or willful act or default of the service. In this connection, the decision of the National Commission in RP No.15/1997 between Head Postmaster, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshethra, Haryana & Others Vs. Vijayaratnam Agarwal. As per this, the compensation shall be double the amount of composite fee speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. It would be thus send that maximum compensation statutory fixed is Rs.1,000/- which can be granted when there is loss of speed post articles or loss of its contents or even damage to the contents.
So as per the arguments of the Opposite Parties as well as Citation cited by the Opposite Parties i.e. in A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, F.A.52 of 2009 Against C.C.No. 510 of 2008 District Forum-I, Hyderabad between P.Nageshwar Rao, Manager Operation in charge, Speed Post Office, Abids, Hyderabad and Mokaddasur Rahman, Hyderabad. In this judgment the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad awarded an amount of Rs.114/- to the complainant i.e. doubled the amount.
Further on the basis of Written Version of the Opposite Parties and also the arguments of Opposite Parties that this Forum has to order the double amount what he has incurred.
The complainant’s counsel cited a citation i.e.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
2011 (2) CPR 43 (NC)
The Postmaster General Kerala & Ors. -- Petitioners
Vs.
Kiran Rasheed -- Respondent
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 14(1) (d) and 24A read with Regulation 14 of Consumer protection Regulations 2005 – Indian Post Office Act 1898 – Section 6 – Postal services – Delay in delivery of mail – Delay in delivery of communication, through sent by Speed post, becomes proximate cause for expenditure on air travel – For a below awarded air ticket cost in favour of Complainant – Order of District Forum to pay cost of air ticket was well within its powers under Section 14(1) (d) – Revision petition dismissed, both on limitation and merits. Statutory protection cannot be used as subterfuge for deficiency in service and the statutory provision u/s.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Postal Office is fighting against the complainant, then there is a deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. So the National Commission has given judgment i.e. Statutory Protection cannot be used as subterfuge for deficiency in service.
This judgment stated that they gave Air Tickets charges to the complainant. In the present case facts, there is a delay of reaching the article to the addressee and in this case the complainant has not attended for anywhere for attending any interview, any written tests or anything. In the above case the complainant went for in interview by Air, when the complainant went by Air for an interview, the National Commission awarded the Air tickets only. But in the present case, the complainant has not attended anywhere for attending anything. Except sent the letter i.e. article, the complainant has not spend any single pie. So the above judgment is applicable only if the complainant spends any amount for traveling expenses or anything. But in this case the complainant has not spend anything. So the judgment is applicable to this case, we accept the judgment cited by the Opposite Parties i.e. of A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, between P.Nageshwar Rao, and Mokaddasur Rahman, in this case the judgment cited by the A.P.S.D.R.C., Hyderabad that the complainant shall be entitled double the amount towards speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to Rs.114/- double the speed post charges being less than Rs.1,000/-. In fact the National Commission in R.P.15 of 1997 and batch between Head Post Master, Post Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana & Others Vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal after considering these provision opined that the complainant shall be entitled to compensation as mentioned in the notification. He would not be entitled any more compensation except the statutory compensation fixed under the above said rule.
So we accept the judgment and come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitle for Rs.58/- and he is not entitled Rs.1,000/- because the complainant spent an amount of Rs.29/- only, so the double amount is Rs.29 + Rs.29 = Rs.58/-, So as per A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad judgment, double the amount i.e. the complainant spent i.e. Rs.29 + Rs.29 = Rs.58/-, so Rs.1,000/- is higher amount and Rs.58/- is lesser amount, so we grant an amount of Rs.58/-. Except the above awarded amount by us, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that, since there is deficiency and negligence on the part of Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay double the amount i.e. the complainant spent i.e. Rs.29 + Rs.29 = Rs.58/- and the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.58/- and accordingly this first point is decided in favour of complainant against the Opposite Parties.
Point No.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of complainant against the Opposite Parties this point is also decided in favour of complainant against the Opposite Parties.
In the result, this complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly & severally to pay an amount of Rs.58/- (Rupees fifty eight only) to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to the Opposite Parties for the compliance of the order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 21st June, 2011).
President Male Member
District Consumer Forum, Warangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties
Affidavit of complainant filed. Affidavit of Opposite Party No.2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A-1 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:10-06-2010 issued to the Opposite Parties
from the A Veerendar, Advocate.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Postal Receipts (2).
3. Ex.A-3 is the Acknowledgement.
4. Ex.A-4 is the letter dt:29-06-2009 from the complainant to the Opposite Party No.2.
5. Ex.A-5 is the letter dt:29-06-2009 to the complainant from the Opposite Party No.2.
6. Ex.A-6 is the letter dt:Nil to the complainant from the Opposite Party No.2.
7. Ex.A-7 is the letter dt:12-11-2009 from the complainant to the Asst.Director, Chief Post
Master General Office, Hyderabad.
8. Ex.A-8 is the letter dt:17-02-2010 from the Opposite Party No.2 to the S.P.M.,
Wardhannapet S.O.
9. Ex.A-9 is the Xerox copy of G.O.Ms.No.77 dt:02-03-2009.
10. Ex.A-10 is the osriginal set of EMS Speed Post and the movement particulars of
EN624469333IN.
11. Ex.A-11 is the Postal Envelop cover.
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL -
PRESIDENT
