Date of filing : 03-04-2008<br /> Date of order : 29-09-2008<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.42/08<br /> Dated this, the 29th day of September 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> K.V.Balakrishnan,<br /> S/o.K.V.Shankaran(Late) } Complainant.<br /> Kotharambath House,<br /> Po.Udma Padinhar, <br /> Kasaragod.Dt.<br /> <br /> 1. The Post Master, Udma Post Office.<br /> 2. The Superintendent of Post Office,<br /> Kasaragod. } Opposite parties.<br /> 3. The Chief Post Master General,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Case of the complainant Balakrishnan a combatant member of Indian Air Force is, that he intend to join the training course of security officer at Bangalore sent application with copies of valuable documents and a demand draft for Rs.1700/-. In speed post service on 16-10-2007, vide receipt No.SPEE 766104124. Balakrishnan sent applications of his 4 other friends working in his unit with 4 demand drafts of Rs.1700/- each in the said speed post article. The article was addressed to the National Institute of Security Management. The training course was proposed to be started on 1-1-2008. Since Balakrishnan did not receive any communication, on enquiries and several correspondences made with the postal authorities he could realise that his speed post article was sent from Udma Post office to Kasaragod and from there it was sent to Bangalore. The same was found stolen from the KSRTC crew in which it was sent to Bangalore. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to redress his grievance. But the postal department fixed a damage of Rs.44/- which he refused to accept. Due to the loss of postal article the complainant and his 4 other friends lost their opportunity for undergoing the security officers course in the NRSM and it adversely affected their future career prospects and expectation. The complainant was suspected by his friends also who did not believe the explanation of the complainant. Balakrishnan suffered heavy mental agony apart from monetary loss due to the illegal act and attitude of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint claiming Rs.1,00,000/- on different heads.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed version Entrustment of the postal article and the loss of the article is admitted. According to opposite parties speed post article was lost while in the custody of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus crew who was entrusted to carry the bags to Bangalore Speed Post Centre. According to Opposite Party the transmission of postal articles is regulated by Indian Post office Rules 1933 as amended from time to time and as per the amended Rule 66 B compensation for the loss of a speed postal article shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1000/- whichever is less. Further in view of Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act also the opposite parties are immune from payments of compensation.<br /> 3. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim and Exts A1 to A4 were marked. For opposite parties no affidavit filed or oral evidence adduced. But Exts B1 to B4 were marked. Both parties heard and documents perused carefully.<br /> 4. The entrustment of postal article and the loss of the postal article are not in dispute. Hence the negligence and deficiency in service is established.<br /> 5. Now the only issue to be settled in this case is whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as prayed by the complainant or not?<br /> 6. The opposite parties relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No.l986/1996 and in RP No.15/1997, RP No.1006/01 and in RP No.1035/02 submitted that the said decisions are squarely applicable to the instant case and hence complaint is liable to rejected.<br /> 7. On going through the said decision it is seen that the Hon’ble national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has very elaborately discussed about the Rule 66 B of the Indian Post Office Rules and Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act and finally held that there is no scope of granting any compensation except to award the total amount of composit speed charges in case of loss etc as envisaged in the Section. In this case the postal charge was Rs.22/-. Hence the compensation to be awarded is Rs.44/-.<br /> 8. In view of the above we pass the following order.<br /> The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.44/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> A1. Photo copy of postal receipt.<br /> A2. 6-11-07 letter sent by Post Master, Bhowali post office to complainant.<br /> A3. 27-11-07letter sent by Post Master, Bhowali post office to complainant.<br /> A4.05-12-07 letter sent by OP No.2 to complainant.<br /> B1. 10.12007 OP No.2 sent letter to complainant.<br /> B2. Photocopy of The Gazette of India<br /> B3. Revision Petition order <br /> B4. Revision petition order<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Pj/, Forwarded by Order<br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br />