Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/153/2015

S.Baig - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Superintendent - Opp.Party(s)

G.Mohanarangan

21 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 21^st   DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.153/2015

 

 

S.Baig,

S/o.Habibullah Baig (late),

No.1B, New No.3, Mosque 2^nd Street,

Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Senior Superintendent,

Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Department of Post,

Tambaram Division,

Chennai – 600 045.

 

2. The Manager,

Speed Post Sorting Hub,

St.Thomas Mount HPO Complex,

Chennai- 600 016.

 

3. The Senior Post Master,

Villivakkam Post Office,

Chennai – 600 049.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.10.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : G.Mohanarangan, S.Gopikrishnan

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mrs.K.AkhilAndeswari ACGSC  

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to order the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards value of articles and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has booked the articles by Speed Post in Speed Post Receipt No.ETO 10529733IN on 25.11.2014 containing 1 saree, 4 T-shirts and BP tablets, totally weighing about 1870 gms and worth about Rs.6,002/- at the office of the Senior Post Master, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 (3^rd Opposite Party ) and to be delivered to Ragiq Shaik, C504, Ideal Tower, N.H.School Road, Near Shioor Garden, Mira Road, E.Thane, Pincode:401107 and the same has been informed by the Complainant to the said Raifq Shaik. The Complainant was informed by the above named Rafiq Shaik that the articles were not delivered. Hence the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party and brought to his notice about the non-delivery of articles through Speed Post. The Complainant gave a Complaint on 15.12.2014.  

2. The 3^rd Opposite Party has directed the Complainant to contact the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant has received a letter on 31.12.2014 from the 1^st Opposite Party addressing to the 2^nd Opposite Party and thereby a copy of letter to the Complainant stating that the Complainant’s Complaint has been forwarded. The 2^nd Opposite Party dated 06.02.2015 alleging that “the articles are not traceable and they treat the Speed Post article as lost before delivery to the addressee. Inconvenience caused is deeply regretted and a compensation amount of Rs.425/- is being processed” and sent through a money order.

3. Now it became apparent from the letter of the Opposite Party that the service on the part of the Opposite Parties is not only deficiency in service and that too unfair trade practice. The Complainant has suffered untold mental suffering and agony and in view of the reasons the Complainant refused to receive the sum of Rs.425/- that has been sent by the Opposite Party by Money order on 20.02.2015. The Complainant issued a notice through his counsel dt.24.02.2015 to the Opposite Parties and the same has been received by them. The Manager, Speed Post sorting Hub, Chennai- 600 016 (2^nd Opposite Party) replied to the counsel for the Complainant by his letter dated 13.03.2015 stating that, “the compensation amount of Rs.425/- was refused as per our department rule, the eligible compensation for loss of speed post article is double the speed post charges or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to order the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards value of the articles and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 admits that the Complainant booked articles on 25.11.2014  at Villivakkam Sub Office. The said letter was dispatched to Chennai to the addressee. However, the letter was not delivered to the addressee. Hence the Complainant made a Complaint.  On completion of a detailed enquiry the article was not traceable and hence Manager NSH Chennai declared the item as lost before delivery and eligible compensation of Rs.425/- was processed and forwarded to the Complainant, through EMO No. 105978150219582793 on 18.02.2015 and the same was refused by the Complainant, for the loss of SPA eligible compensation is “Double the Speed Post Charges or Rs.1000/- whichever is less” as prescribed in the Department Rulings, vide Directorate letter No.43-4/89-BDD dt. 22/1/99.  The Complainant was compensated for a sum of Rs.425/- being double the SP Charges. A Legal Notice was received from one Shri. G.Mohanarangam, on 28.02.2015 and in this regard, a detailed Report was sent to Shri. G. Mohanarangam, counsel for the Complainant on 13.03.2015.

          5. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 wherein it is specifically stated that the Postal Department will not incur any liability by reasons of loss,  mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post including speed post. It exempts the postal Department from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as 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, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of Default. Therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant booked the articles by Speed Post  under Ex.A1 receipt at the Villivakkam  Sub Post Office on  25.11.2014 to be delivered to Rafial Shaik, Complaint 504, Ideal Tower, N.H.School Road, Near Shioor Garden, Mira Road, E.Thane, Pincode:401107 and however the articles was not delivered, then the Complainant gave Ex.A2 Complaint dated 15.12.2014 to the 3^rd Opposite Party and thereafter the Complainant received Ex.A4 reply from the 2^nd Opposite Party that the articles not traceable and hence a statutory amount of Rs.425/- is fixed and sent through e-money order and the Complainant refused to receive the said sum of Rs.425/- and thereafter the Complainant issued Ex.A5 legal notice to the Opposite Parties and the 1^st Opposite Party sent Ex.A6 reply to the 2^nd Opposite Party marking copy to the Complainant advocate.

          8. The Complainant contended that since his article booked under Ex.A1 not delivered to the addressee, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service and further  he suffered with mental agony.

          9. The Opposite Parties replied that they have committed deficiency in service and 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 protects them and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          10. The Opposite Parties admits that the articles booked by the Complainant were not delivered. Such non delivery of articles by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency or not has to be decided. To appreciate this fact, it is necessary to extract section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

 

    Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage:- The (Government) shall not incur liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, 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 as hereinafter provided; 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 of default.

The above said provision makes it clear that the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of articles booked, unless it has been caused fraudulently or by willful act or default of the Opposite Parties. In the case in hand nowhere pleaded in the Complaint that loss of postal article was due to fraudulent act or willful act or default of the Opposite Parties. This view also confirmed by an order of the National Commission relied on by the Opposite Parties counsel, reported in I (2014) CPJ 97 (NC) (RADINDER NATH UPADJYA Vs. Sr. SUPDT OF POST OFFICES & ANOTHER). Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant has neither pleaded nor proved the loss of the registered article due to fraudulent willful act of the Opposite Parties and in such circumstance, as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible for any liability.

          11. The National Commission also held in the above order in para 5 as follows:

        As per allegations in the Complaint draft of Rs.25,000/- was sent by Complainant to the addressee through registered post. Admittedly, it was not insured. If Complainant as sending draft in the letter, he should have sent it as insured letter and in the absence of insured letter; Opposite Party is not under liability to reimburse any amount.

As held above, in this case also the Complainant sent registered post, but not insured the post and therefore it becomes clear that the Opposite Parties are not under liability for the uninsured post sent by the Complainant. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 25.11.2014                   Booking receipt

Ex.A2 dated 15.12.2014                   Copy of Complaint

Ex.A3 dated 30.12.2014                   Copy of letter of the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 06.02.2015                   Copy of letter of the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 24.02.2015                   Copy of Lawyer’s Notice

Ex.A6 dated 10.03.2015                   Copy of letter of 2^nd Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 15.12.2014                   The copy of Complaint letter of the sender 

                                                     Forwarded through SSPOs Tambaram Division

 

Ex.B2 dated 16.12.2014                   The copy of Tracking report

 

Ex.B3 dated 10.01.2015                   The copy  of web Complaint report

 

Ex.B4 dated 06.02.2015                   The copy of reply letter from this Opposite Party

                                                     to Complainant

 

Ex.B5 dated 22.01.1999                   The copy of the Directorate letter

 

Ex.B6 dated 18.02.2015                   The copy of compensation sanction Memo

 

Ex.B7 dated 24.02.2015                   The copy of EMO returned to Sender

 

Ex.B8 dated 24.02.2015                   The copy of letter to the Postmaster. St. Thomas

                                                     Mount for crediting the amount under UCR.

 

Ex.B9 dated 24.02.2015                   The copy of Legal Notice

 

Ex.B10 dated 13.03.2015                 Reply letter

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT