BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.05/2014

Dated this the 28^th day of January 2015.

Ralph A.Mathews

No.11, 15^th Cross, Avvai nagar

Lawspet, Puducherry-605 008.                                         ….       Complainant

Vs.

The Senior Superintendent of Post

Office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices

India Post, Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry-1.

                                                                                                ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT           : Thiru.L.Sathish, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Thiru.R.Balasubramanian, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying :

1. To direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1095/- being the value of the article dispatched through registered letter dated 10.12.2010.
2. To direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.163/- +Rs.390/- being the postal expenditures incurred by complainant in sending the undelivered article and numerous registered posts sent by him to opposite party.
3. To direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the disappointment and trauma caused to complainant due to non-delivery of the parcel to his beloved sister on a special occasions.
4. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards the psychological pain and sufferings caused to the complainant due to extremely poor and inefficient handling of his grievance and making him run behind the department for a 3 years in seeking justice and even then failing to address the issue as on this date.
5. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards his legal notice.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant has sent a parcel from opposite party's office at Puducherry on 10.12.2010 in receipt No.ERR422665309IN to his sister Asha Ruth Mathews, then resident of Capitol Towers Appts., Appt No.117, 510, Gay Street, Vashville, Tennesse-37219, USA containing one leather purse and two greeting cards, worth of Rs.1095/-.  However the parcel has not reached the addressee till date.   The articles were sent by him to express his love and affection towards the addressee on a special occasion and more than its value in money, the smile and happiness the gifts in the parcel would have bought in the face of the addressee was invaluable.   He addressed a letter to opposite party on 20.01.2011 seeking intimation on the status of the delivery of the said parcel.  On 31.01.2011, the opposite party wrote a letter informing him that the parcel was dispatched to New York on 11.12.2010 in ML 286 BG 14EAS8 LIST 1 and it is awaiting communication from its foreign administration.  The similar letter was addressed by it to complainant on 18.03.2011.  On 12.04.2011 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party enclosing the claim form for considering complainant's claim for ex-gratia compensation for non-delivery of parcel.   The complainant filled up the said form and submitted it on 18.04.2011.

3.         On 20.05.2011, the complainant once again received a letter from opposite party seeking full address of the addressee and information about the content of the registered letter. The complainant once again sent the details through registered letter dated 26.05.2011.   After making numerous visits to opposite party's office in person, making phone calls and waiting in anticipation for 5 months, the complainant addressed a letter dated 14.10.2011 reminding the opposite party for non-payment of compensation. On  20.10.2011 the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant claiming that the complainant' complaint No.605000-11207 for exgratia compensation is under process.  Once again on 14.01.2012, the complainant wrote another letter seeking payment of exgratia compensation, which was once again replied by opposite party on 20.01.2012 with a stereotyped answer.   The complainant sent a letter notice on 09.07.2012, though it was received by opposite party on 18.07.2012, no reply was received by the complainant.  It is most unfortunate that a Government department like opposite party is seeking issue of loss of baggage in such casual and lethargic manner.  The complainant's patience with the department has worn out.   The opposite party cannot defend itself on any grounds whatsoever, in view of the negligence and its inefficiency being writ large on the face of the entire episode.  Hence the complaint.  

4.         The reply version of the opposite party is as follows:

            It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has booked a registered letter bearing No.RR 422665309 IN dated 10.12.2012 at Puducherry HO addressed to Ms.Asha Ruth Mathews, Capitol Towers Appts, Appt No.117 510, Gay Street Nashville, Tennesse 37219 US.  The complainant preferred a complaint letter dated 20.01.2011 to the Postmaster, Pondicherry HO stating that the said registered letter has not reached the addressee and to communicate the status of the article.  The case was indexed in the web based customer grievances handling system under no.605000-11207 on 27.01.2011 by the opposite party and the case was taken up with the Chennai Airmail sorting division and they have a given a reply that the registered letter was dispatched to Newyork on 11.12.2010 in Mail List 286, in page n14 entered at Sl.No.8 in list 1 and also informed that the case is taken up with the Foreign Administration and reply will be sent by post.  The said detail was informed to the complainant on 31.01.2011 through letter No.605000-11207.  The opposite party stated that a letter dated 18.03.2011, cited in Sl.No.3 is  not related to this case.  The Senior Superintendent RMS, Chennai Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai vide their letter No.AM/RO/AA5/151/2011 dated 04.04.2011 intimated that since there is no response from the Foreign Administration of USA for their enquiry note and subsequent reminders till date, the case may be processed for claim after confirming non receipt of the registered letter by the sender.

 5.        The blank application was forwarded to the complainant vide opposite party letter No.Pccc 605000-11207 dated 12.04.2011 and it was directed to submit the filled in claim application to the opposite party.   The filled in claim application preferred by the complainant was received by the opposite party on 26.04.2011.  The averment of the complainant that sending a claim application clearly amounted to admission of loss of parcel of complainant by opposite party is not true.  The complainant was directed by letter dated 20.05.2011 to intimate the full the address of the addressee as per enquiry Note CN No.08 raised by the Senior Superintendent RMS, Chennai Airmail Sorting Division. The complainant gave a letter dated 26.05.2011.  As concrete reply was received from Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai to process for claim since their office could not get a definite reply the Foreign Administration, the case was taken up with the Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Chennai-600 02 by the opposite party vide letter dated 20.02.2012 for sanction of claim with the necessary documents and the complainant was informed by the opposite party by letter dated 20.01.2012 that his claim application is under process and to await further communication from Regional Office.  The Senior Superintendent RMS Airmail Sorting Division Chennai informed vide their letter dated 08.02.2012 that as per UP U convention Berne 2005, compensation to the maximum of 30SDR  is permitted (One SDR 74.4014 as on 01.01.2010) and the same was informed by the opposite party to the Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Chennai-600 002 by the opposite party vide letter dated 23.02.2012.  It is informed by the opposite party to the Postmaster Genreal by letter dated 20.07.2012 that the said article has not been returned to sender.  The legal notice dated 09.07.2012 which was received from the complainant was forwarded to the Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Chennai by the opposite party vide letter dated 20.07.2012 and further reminded on 07.08.2012 and 30.08.2012.

6.         The opposite party denies all the allegations except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version. The opposite party took up the case with the Foreign Administration through the Airmail sorting division and the Foreign administration did not respond to the enquiry of Indian Postal administration and the case was decided to be processed for claim and accordingly claim processing was done.   There is no intentional/ willful delay in settling the claim.  The claim sanction for Rs.1385/- as claimed by the complainant has been issued by the Postmaster General vide Memo No.INV/106-4/2012/ccr dated 05.02.2014 and a copy of the same has been endorsed to the complainant to receive the payment at Pondicherry head Post Office. The opposite party relied on Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898  and contended that it is liable to pay compensation in case of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

7.         Both the parties have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence but they have chosen to mark the documents Exs.C1 to C12 on the side of the complainant and Exs.R1 to R14 on the side of the opposite party, on consent.

8.         Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

9.         Point No.1:  

            The complainant herein has booked a parcel on 10.12.2010 vide receipt No.ERR422665309IN contained in Ex.C1 to Tennesse-37219, USA containing one leather purse and two greeting cards by paying Rs.390/- as booking charges.  Thus the complainant has availed service from the opposite party upon paying consideration. Hence the complainant is the consumer within the purview of the Act. 

10.       Point No.2:

            The case of the complainant is that he has sent a parcel to his sister Asha Ruth, Tennesse-37219, USA through postal receipt No.ERR422665309IN on 10.12.2010.  As the parcel has not reached the addressee in time, he has sent a written complaint Ex.C1 on 20.01.2011 to the opposite party, for which he received a reply, Ex.C2, stating that the parcel was despatched to New York on 11.12.2010 in ML 286 BG 14 E A S 8 LIST 1 and it is awaiting communication from its foreign administration. After number of similar communications, the opposite party sent a claim form Ex.C4 on 12.04.2011 for considering complainant's claim for ex-gratia compensation for non-delivery of parcel.  The filled in application Ex.C5 was sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 18.04.2011. After making numerous visits, phone calls and letters, on 20.10.2011 the opposite party sent a letter Ex.C9 to the complainant that his claim is under process.  Even after lapse of 6 months, there was no progress.  There was no response from the opposite party for the legal notice Ex.C12 dated 09.07.2012 sent by the complainant. 

11.       The opposite party admitted all the allegations contended by the complainant except the delay in payment of exgratia compensation by them.  Due to the reasons that no report on loss of the article was received from Foreign Administration and also it is beyond administrative jurisdiction to ascertain the loss of article, the claim was kept pending.  The opposite party further pleaded that there is no intentional or willful delay in settling the claim.  The claim sanction of Rs.1385/- as claimed by the complainant has been issued by the Postmaster General vide Memo No.INV/106-4/2012/ccr , Ex.C14 dated 05.02.2014 and a copy of the same has been endorsed to the complainant to receive payment at Pondicherry Head Post Office. Further, The OPs have taken the shelter of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or any 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 herein after 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.

12.       The perusal of records reveals that the complainant sent a parcel to his sister at Tennesse-37219, USA and paid Rs.390/- for availing services. It is apparent that the parcel neither reached the addressee nor return back to the sender/complainant. According to reply in Ex.R3, it is mentioned that "This office CN No.08 has been returned by the foreign Postal Administration for want of full address of the addressee and contents sent through the item.  Since duplicate issuance is withdrawn as per CPU, the case is treated as closed at this end".  Hence, it is proved that the opposite party has taken steps to trace out the missed parcel but their efforts ended in vain.  Now we have to consider whether the opposite party is entitled for protection under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act.  The perusal of above said provision makes it clear that the opposite party cannot be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless it has been caused fraudulently or willful of the opposite party.  The perusal of complaint clearly reveals that the complainant has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that loss of postal article was due to fraudulent act or willful act on the part of the opposite party.  Thus, it becomes clear that complainant has not proved loss or misdelivery of the registered article due to fraudulent and willful act on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has already sanctioned Rs.1385/-  as ex-gratia for non delivery of the parcel.   In such circumstances, as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for any liability.  In support of the decision, this Forum has relied on 2014(1)CPR 75 NC- Post Master, Sub Post Office & Others Vs. Ajay Goyal.  The complainant has relied the citations of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in  Revision Petition No.127/2012 –Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Bangalore South Divn., & others Vs.Manjit Kaul Sodhi  and (2) Revision Petition No.3702/2012 – Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Post, Alwar, Rajasthan Vs. Pushpendra Singh.  In the above said judgments, the complainant has proved the willful act of the opposite party but in the case in hand, the complainant has neither pleaded nor established the fraudulent and willful act of the opposite party.  The judgments relied by this Forum is recent, renowned and squarely applicable to this case than the judgments relied by the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.

13.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point no.2, the complaint is hereby dismissed. No cost.

Dated this the 28^th day of January 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:   Nil

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS:  Nil

 COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:    

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER