Date of filing:27.9.2013
Date of Disposal:18.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.168 OF 2013.
Between :
L.Siva Reddy, S/o Appi Reddy, Hindu, 48 years, Car Seat Works by profession, R/o Door No.43-83-20, At the end of Daba Kotla Road, Ajitsinghnagar, Vijayawada 520 015.
….. Complainant.
And
1. The Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Vijayawada – 520 001.
2. The Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Office, Ajitsinghnagar, Vijayawada – 15.
3. The Post Master General (EP & Marktg.,) V.D.Bhavan, Mumbai.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 3.2.2014 in the presence of complainant appearing in person and Sri L.L.Narasimham, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 and 3 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant booked a parcel weighing 7,460 grams with the 2nd opposite party on 2.1.2010 by paying Rs.2,355/- towards postal charges to send the same to his son to Germany. But the said parcel was not delivered to his son and the same was returned to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party advised the complainant to give complaint to the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant gave a complaint to the opposite parties 2 and 3 about non-delivery of parcel booked by him. On receipt of the same the opposite parties 2 and 3 directed the 1st opposite party to return the unserved parcel to the complainant on collection of Rs.2,272/-. The 1st opposite party informed the same to the complainant, but the complainant did not do so as the parcel returned to the 1st opposite party was less than the weight booked by him and requested the 1st opposite party repeatedly to give proper explanation for shortage of weight. The 1st opposite party failed to do so and kept the parcel with them. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint in C.C.No.55/2011 before this Forum and the same was dismissed in 12.4.2012 and directed the opposite parties to return the parcel to the complainant. Under these circumstances the complainant took delivery of the parcel from the 2nd opposite party on 21.3.2013 weighing only 2,474 grams instead of 7,460 grams amounting to Rs.1,000/-. The opposite parties ought to have deliver the remaining weight of 4,985 grams and costs. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite parties failed to deliver the same and even did not give proper response to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.22,500/- towards the cost of shortage of goods weighing 4,985 grams; to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and to pay costs.
2. The opposite parties 2 and 3 called absent and the 1st opposite party filed its version.
The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant booked a parcel weighing of 7,460 grams on 2.1.2010 for dispatch the same to his son L.Easwar Reddy, wittenberg, 27/7 Zyrardow, Poland, 96300. The opposite party charged Rs.2,355/- towards postal charges. The contents of the goods are not declared on the parcel. The parcel was returned back undelivered on 2.4.2010 by surface mail and the same was returned to the 2nd opposite party office on 9.10.2010 with a redirection postal charges of Rs.2,272/- as levied on it by foreign postal administration. The complainant refused to take delivery of the same and filed a case with C.C.No.55/2011 in this Forum and on final orders of this Forum on12.4.2012, he took delivery of the parcel through Azith Nagar S.O., on 21.3.2013 under inventory, the weight of 2,475 grams parcel. It is a fact that there is difference of weight about 4,985 grams. The contents of the parcel inside is not known to the 1st opposite party. The complainant took delivery of the parcel on 21.3.2013 and again approached this Forum and tried to evade the returned charges of the parcel Rs.2,272/-. The compensation is admissible under rules to the complainant after establishing the value of the loss of contents. The weight of the parcel is 7,460 grams at the time of dispatch to Poland. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Mr.L.S.N.Murthy, Senior Post Master gave his affidavit and no documents were marked.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not hand over the returned parcel with the same weight of 7,460 grams as it was booked?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand, Ex.A.1 shows that the complainant booked a parcel weighing of 7,460 grams on 2.1.2010 to deliver the same to his son L.Eswar Reddy, Wittenbergh, 27/7, Zyrardow, Poland, Pin No.96-300. The complainant says that he paid postal charges of Rs.2,335/- for the same. But the said parcel was not delivered to his son and returned to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party informed to pay returned parcel charges of Rs.2,272/-. On advise of the 1st opposite party he gave complaint about the same to the 2nd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party. On repeated demands of him the 2nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 3rd opposite party under Ex.A.2 dated 7.8.2010 about the non-delivery of the parcel. The 2nd opposite party instructed the 1st opposite party under Ex.A.3 to receive Rs.2,272/- from the complainant to deliver the returned parcel. The 1st opposite party informed the same to the complainant, but the complainant did not agree to pay the charges of Rs.2,272/- and to take delivery of returned parcel as it was weighing less weight than he sent earlier. The weight of parcel at the time of booking was 7,460 grams and the returned parcel weight is 2,475 grams. Either the 2nd opposite party or the 1st opposite party did not respond for the difference weight of 4,985/- grams. The returned parcel was lying with the 1st opposite party since 11.10.2010. When the opposite parties 1 to 3 are not responding for the difference weight of 4,985 grams of weight of the returned parcel, the complainant filed a complaint in this Forum as C.C.55/2011 against the opposite parties 1 and 2 praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to deliver the parcel to the complainant with actual weight of 7,460 grams or to compensate the loss of goods and for other reliefs. On hearing the both parties, this Forum dismiss the complaint on 12.4.2012 under Ex.A.5 stating that there was no whisper about the less weight of the parcel anywhere in the complaint or affidavit filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deliver the said parcel to the complainant if he refuse to receive the said parcel to retain the same with them. As per the complainant obeying the orders of this Forum, the complainant had taken delivery of the said parcel on 21.3.2013 under Ex.A.6 from the 2nd opposite party weighing of 2,475 grams valued only Rs.1,000/- instead of 7,460 grams valued Rs.20,000/-
7. The 1st opposite party admitted the fact that there is difference of weight about 4,985 grams. The contents of the parcel inside is not known to the opposite parties. The complainant took delivery of the parcel on 21.3.2013 and again approached this Forum to evade the returned charges of the parcel Rs.2,272/-. The compensation is admissible under rules will be paid to the complainant after establishing the loss of contents and their value.
8. On hearing the parties it is true that the weight of the parcel booked with the 1st opposite party by the complainant is 7,460 grams. The complainant failed to mention the contents put inside of the parcel and its value. The parcel returned undelivered to the addressee with weight of 2,475 grams and the difference is 4,985 grams. On several demands of the complainant about the difference of the parcel the opposite parties failed to say the reason what was happened. The complainant earlier filed complaint under C.C.55/2011 for compensation of the difference weight of the value. As the complainant failed to plead and establish about the contents and its value put inside of the parcel the Forum dismissed the earlier complaint. Again the complainant filed this complaint and mentioned the articles and its value in his complaint and his affidavit. But he did not file any bills for the same. Even though there are no bills for the said articles, but it is fact that there is difference in the weight of the parcel at about 4,985 grams and he should be compensated for the same by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are answerable for loss of weight of the parcel and its contents. The complainant is not aware where the loss is caused. The 1st opposite party did not file any material to show that the compensation is admissible under rules will be paid to the complainant to what amount and no evidence is find that the parcel was returned with less weight from Germany. Taking into consideration of the articles as are mentioned in the complaint and affidavit of the complainant, he has to compensated by the opposite parties for their negligence and deficiency in service. The postal charges paid by the complainant will not be returned.
9. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, reads as follows:
“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far a such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”.
This Forum noticed a ruling of National Consumer Disputes Redreessal Commission, New Delhi in Senior Post Master, Department of Posts, India & Ors. Vs. John George II (2013) CPJ 15A (NC) (CN), wherein the National Commission observed that where the complainant did not receive speed post, which contained numerous valuable documents in connection with employment of complainant abroad, post office suspected that these document were lost in transit, the post office cannot wriggle out of liability by merely saying that same were lost or that the Act protects them, and when the record does not show that any departmental action was taken against wrong-doer, negligence and deficiency in service proved, compensation can be awarded.
Applying the same analogy we hold that the opposite party cannot escape liability under the guise of the Act and Rules, without explaining how the parcel lost weight to an extent more than 60%. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
POINT No.3:-
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 3 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) the value of missing items (valued at approximately), to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand rupees only) towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand rupees only) towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this Order. If the opposite parties failed to comply the order of this Forum within stipulated period, the awarded amount carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 18th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 L.Siva Reddy D.W.1 L.S.N.Murthy,
Complainant Senior Post Master of the
(by affidavit) 1st opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 02.01.2010 Photocopy of postal receipt.
Ex.A.2 07.08.2010 Photocopy of letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A.3 11.10.2010 Photocopy of Intimation Slip.
Ex.A.4 03.02.2011 Photocopy of Andhra Bank Cheque for Rs.100/-.
Ex.A.5 12.04.2012 Photocopy of Order of this Forum in C.C.55 of 2011.
Ex.A.6 21.03.2013 Photocopy of open delivery of foreign Air Parcel.
For the opposite parties:-
None.
PRESIDENT
