IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 06th day of February, 2024
Filed on: 10.07.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.189/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Sri. Reny Antony (52 Years) 1. The Post Master
Vadakkeyattam House CDAP Post Office. Prayagraj District
Thottappally.P.O, Karuvatta Village Uttar Pradesh State
Alappuzha District, Kerala State Pincode-211014
Pin- 688561
2. The Post Master,
Karuvatta Post Office, Alappuzha District
Kerala State, Pin code-690517
3. The Superintendent of Post offices
Mavelikkara Postal Division
Mavelikkara-690101
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-
The complainant, an Ex-service man of Indian Army sent speed post letter under Right to Information Act bearing No. EL374512637IN on 16/5/2023 from Karuvatta Post Office to the office of Principal Controller of Defense Account which is the complainant’s pension office. The said letter received at CDA(P) SO on 20/5/2023. But the said letter was delivered to the addressee only on 20/6/2023 ie, delayed for 30 days. Alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite party this complaint filed for taking action against the opposite parties and for allowing compensation from opposite parties.
2. In response to the complaint 3rd opposite party filed version on and behalf of all the 3 opposite parties as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
The complaint is about the delay in delivery of speed post article number EL374512637IN addressed to The Public Information Officer, The Principal Controller of Defense Account, CDA(P) PO (PIN Code-211014). The article was booked at Karuvatta SO-690517 under Mavelikara Division on 16/5/2023 and dispatched to Kayamkulam RMS in speed post Bag No. EBL0768755980 on 16/5/2023 itself. As per the tracking report available in the Indiapost website, it is seen that the article has reached the delivery office CDA(P) SO-211014 under Prayagraj Division on 20/5/2023 and has been delivered to the addressee on 20/6/2023.
As per the report of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Prayagraj Division received vide letter number CR-02/COURT CASE-104/2022-23 dtd. 26/7/2023, the article was delivered to the addressee on 22/5/2023, due to the technical issues at the delivery office, CDA(P) PO-211014, the updation of delivery particulars of the speed post article EL374512637IN in the India Post website could only be completed by 20/6/2023 after resolving the technical issue. As the updation can be done only on real time basis, the delivery date was updated as 20/6/2023 in India Post website. The article was delivered within the prescribed delivery norms. The averment that the delivery of the article has been delayed by 30 days is not true.
The speed post article EL374512637IN was booked at Karuvatta SO on 16/5/2023 and dispatched to Kayamkulam RMS vide speed post bag number EBL 0768755980 on the same day itself. As such no lapses occurred on the part of second opposite party, the Sub Postmaster, Karuvatta SO-690517. The article reached the destination PO on 20/5/2023 and was delivered to the addressee on 22/5/2023 that is, within the prescribed delivery norms of speed post article. As such there is no negligence or willful delay or any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The compensation can be paid only for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the postal article. In accordance with the Directorate letter No. 43-4/87-BDD dtd.22/1/1999, in the event of delay of domestic Speed post articles beyond the prescribed delivery norms, as a part of money back guarantee, the speed post charges paid by the customer will be refunded. In this case no loss, misdelivery, delay or damage is established and hence payment of compensation is not admissible.
Even though preliminary complaint redressal mechanisms, both online and offline, exists in the Department of Posts like all Central Government departments, the complainant had not exhausted any of the channels available for redressal of his grievance; but has rushed before this Commission filing the instant CC. Had the complainant chose to lodge a complaint either manually or in any of the online forums available in the Department, the opposite parties would have redressed his grievance. The case may be dismissed as it is devoid of any merits with cost to the opposite parties.
3. Points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this complaint consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 on the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 series on the side of opposite parties. Opposite parties filed notes of argument. Heard complainant.
5. Point No. 1 and 2:-
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the postal receipt dtd. 16/5/2023 with regard to the disputed consignment. Ext.A2 and Ext.A4 are the tracking details of the same on two different dates. Ext.A 3 is the letter along with its envelop sent by CDA(P), Prayagraj to the complainant. Ext.A5 is letter from CDA(P),, Prayagraj to the complainant dtd. 11/8/2023.
RW1 is the Public grievance Inspector of Postal Department, Mavelikara division. She filed affidavit in tune with the version of opposite parties and got marked Ext.B1 series. It is the letter issued from post office, Prayagraj to 3rd opposite party dtd. 27/10/2023 along with the letter from CDA(P),, Prayagraj to Sub Post Master, CDA(P),, Prayagraj dtd. 27/10/2023.
PW1’s case is that though the complainant posted a letter on 16/5/2023 from 2nd opposite party to the Principal Controller of Defense Account, Prayagraj, it was delivered to the addressee only on 20/6/2023 through the 1st opposite party where the said letter last reached for end delivering. Though the said letter received at the 1st opposite party on 20/5/2023, the same was delivered to the addressee on 20/6/2023, after a period of 30 days. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties this complaint filed.
It was contented by the opposite parties that the article sent by the complainant was reached the destination post office on 20/5/2023 and was delivered to the addressee on 22/5/2023, i.e, within the prescribed delivery norms of speed post article and hence no negligence or willful delay or any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Admittedly the consignment No. EL374512637 IN, the Postal article sent by the complainant to the addressee, The Principal Controller of Defense Account, Prayagraj on 16/5/2023 from 2nd opposite party. As per Ext.A2 the said article was reached at the end post office ie, the 1st opposite party on 20/5/2023, 11:02:06. On the said document itself it revealed that the disputed article was delivered to the addressee only on 20/6/2023, 08: 53:14. It is reflected in Ext.A4 also. Ext.A2 and A4 are the photocopies of tracking details of the consignment taken by the complainant from the website of the opposite party on different dates. In these two documents it is reiterated the date of delivery of the consignment is 20/6/2023. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the consignment was delivered to the addressee on 22.05.2023. For more clarification of the said pleading opposite parties submitted Ext.B1 series in which they attached a letter from the office of The Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions), Prayagraj stating that the disputed consignment received the said office on 22/5/2023. However from the wordings of the letter it cannot understand that the consignment was delivered to the addressee on the said date ie, on 22/5/2023. Moreover in Ext.A5 the letter issued by The Principal CDA(P), dtd. 11/8/2023 the issuing officer admitted that the letter (The disputed consignment) mentioned that the letter of the complainant dated. 22/6/2023 i.e, one month later than the date specified in Ext.B1 series.
This letter also more specifically stated the date of receiving the disputed letter to the addressee on 22/6/2023. On evaluation of the entire evidence on record the argument taken by the opposite parties regarding the date of delivery of the disputed consignment is doubtful and accordingly we found deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party to deliver the consignment to the addressee by delaying a period of one month. Subsequently, though the opposite parties submitted documents for substantiating their contention, it is discredited by itself. In the above circumstance we are constrained to allow the complaint and 1st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency on their part since it was not redressed at the primary stage of grievance.
6. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint stands allowed directing the 1st opposite to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant, as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 06th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Reny Antony(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Postal Receipt dtd. 16/5/2023
Ext.A2 - Tracking details
Ext.A3 - Letter & Envelop
Ext.A4 - Track Consignment
Ext.A5 - Letter dtd. 11/8/2023
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Arya.K (Public Grievance Inspector)
Ext.B1 series - Letters
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
