DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Shri.Roy Kurian, President<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.88/2006<br /> <br /> Balan @ Balasubramanian,<br /> S/o.M.Manikyamuthali,<br /> Mallisseri Parambu,<br /> Shoranur Post,<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> The Postal Superintendent,<br /> Ottappalam. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> Complainant had booked one registered parcel at Shoranur Post Office on 2.3.2006 under No.192 addressed to Saraswathi Sankar, Annai Illam, Maddox Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600112. Complainant submits that he had sent a saree in the said parcel brought by his brother from Gulf and it costs Rs.7,320/- (Behrin dinar 62). But the parcel was not delivered to the addressee so far. On 25.3.2006 he sent a petition to the Superintendent of Ottappalam Post Office and he had contacted him over phone several times but there was no reply to the petition filed. Hence he issued a registered notice to the Postal Superintendent of Ottappalam on 26.5.2006. No reply was received to the said letter also. Hence the complainant approached before the forum for the redressal of his grievance due to the <br /> <br /> : 2 :<br /> non delivery of the parcel to the addressee. Complainant is tailor. He alleges that due to the non delivery he had to contact repeatedly both to the Gulf and Chennai and also to the postal department over telephone. He had contacted the post offices of Shoranur and Ottappalam several days by losing his job. Complainant alleges that the non delivery of parcel amounts to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Postal Department. He had suffered lot of mental agony due to the above act. Hence the complainant has claimed Rs.25,000/- as damages from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was served to the opposite party for their appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. Opposite party contented that since he is an officer working under Union of India complaint is bad for non-jointer of Union of India as a necessary party. It was admitted that complainant had booked one registered parcel at Shoranur Post Office on 2.3.2006 under No.192 addressed to Saraswathi Sankar, Annai Illam, Maddox Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600112 the parcel was promptly despatched to its destination by Shoranur Post Office through Shoranur R.M.S, on the same day of booking. A letter of complaint dtd.25.3.2006 from the complainant addressed to the opposite party requesting early delivery of the parcel to the addressee was received through the Post Master, Shoranur on 27.3.2006. The complaint was acknowledged and immediate enquiries were initiated. As a Post Master, Choolai, Chennai 600112 vide his letter dtd.20.4.2006 intimated that the parcel under complaint was not received at his end till 20.4.2006. A search bill was issued on 25.4.2006 to find out a stage by stage disposal of the parcel. The search bill enquiries revealed that the parcel in question was lost in transit from Chennai sorting as communicated by the Senior Superintendent of R.M.S, Chennair sorting Division, Chennai 600118 vide his letter dtd.27.6.2006. Since the parcel was <br /> : 3 :<br /> found lost in transit an application form for submitting his claim, if any, for the ex-gratia compensation was forwarded to the complainant by the opposite party vide his letter dtd. No.CCC/Opm/CRF2/IV-11/06-07 dtd.15.7.2006 and the same was received by the complainant on 18.7.2006 as per the acknowledgement card received back. So far the claim application has not been received. His claim will be considered as per the rules on the subject of on receipt of his claim application. It was further contented that the opposite party was not aware of the contends of the parcel as the article was presented for booking in a closed packet. The claim of the complainant for compensation is not maintainable. It was also submitted that complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The Act provides that the Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt. as herein after provided and no officer of Post Office shall incur any liability by reasons of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages unless he has caused the same fraudulently by his willful act or default. There is no wilful act or default on the part of this opposite party in this case. There is no pleading of wilful act nor default against any officer of the department either. The immunity available to the Department under Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act, 1898 had been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission and our State Commission in its several judgements. In view of the above judgements the above complaint had to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Both parties filed proof affidavits to support their contentions. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exst.B1 and B2 series was marked on the side of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was posted for hearing. <br /> : 4 : <br /> Heard the parties. We have perused all the documents produced before the forum as well as the Chief Examination affidavits filed by both parties. In the version and affidavit filed by the opposite party, it is stated that a Search Bill was issued on 25.4.2006 to find out the stage by stage disposal of the parcel. The Search Bill enquiries revealed that the parcel in question was lost in transit from Chennai Sorting as communicated by the Senior Superintendent of RMS, Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai 600 008 vide his letter No.K.12/SB-4/06 dtd.27.6.06. The copy of the said letter was produced.<br /> <br /> It is obvious from the above contention that the parcel was lost from the Chennai Sorting Section. The opposite party contented that they are entitled to seek shelter under the cover of Section 6 of the Post Office Act since there is no case for the complainant that loss was caused due to any fraudulent act of any particular officer of the post office and it is not alleged and proved by the complainant. They had also produced the decision cited by our State Commission and National Commission in this aspect. We had gone through certain other decision rendered by our own Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with regard to the same question of Section 6. Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had held in Jyothi .N Vs. the Chief Post Master General and Others the decision reported in 2005 (1) CPR 19 and also in 2005 (1) CLT 256 (Kerala) as follows:<br /> <br /> Postal – Service – Negligence – Burden of proof – Default on the part of officer of Postal Department in delivery of letter - Held that in case of default etc. on the part of “any officer” of the post office the Post Master and Head Post Master will be liable – Allegation of fraud etc. need not be raised against any particular guilty officer – when alleged default is “extensive” the complainant need not prove the same – the <br /> : 5 :<br /> burden to substantiate absence of negligence etc. lies on the opposite party. <br /> In the above case it is held that in case of default etc. on the part of “any officer” of the post officer the post master and Head Post Master will be liable. Allegation of fraud etc. need not be raised against any particular guilty officer. Default is “Extensive” and the complainant need not prove the same. In this case it is revealed that the parcel has been lost from Chennai, Sorting Division.<br /> <br /> In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that Head Post Master and Post Master of Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai – 600 118 is responsible for the loss of the article and they will be liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of article. We are of the view that the opposite party cannot escape from the responsibility of the service entrusted to him by complainant. Hence we attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> In the above context, we direct the opposite party to pay the cost of the saree Rs.7,320/- (Behrin dinar 62) to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings. The opposite party can realise the amount from the Post Master of Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai 600118 as observed by Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of communication of this order.<br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of April, 2007 <br /> President (Sd)<br /> Member (Sd)<br /> : 6 : <br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Postal receipt for sending the complaint to Superintendent of Post Office, Ottapalam<br /> Ext.A2 – Postal receipt for sending the saree to Chennai<br /> Ext.A3 – Reply sent by Superintendent of Post Office, Ottappalam<br /> Ext.A4 – Purchase bill of saree<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party<br /> Ext.B1 – Copy of the reply sent by Chennai Post Office to Ottappalam Post Office <br /> Ext.B2 (Series) – Copy of the reply sent by Superintendent of Post Office, Ottappalam to complainant along with acknowledgement <br /> <br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> <br /> Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as costs to the complainant