CC Filed on 24.04.2010
Disposed on 06.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 06th day of August 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLET. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 47/2010
Between:
Mr. K. Ramappa, S/o. Dodda Kuntappa, Aged 72 years, Shanthi Traders, Shop at M.B. Road, KolarCity. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa) V/S 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Petechamanhalli Extension, KolarCity. 2. Union of India, By its Secretary, Department of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Post Master General, General Post Office, Bangalore. (By Advocate Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy) | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he is a Potato Merchant near Kolar and he does transactions with potato growers at different place. He procures seeds from Jallandhar in the month of August and September for supplying to the potato growers at Kolar. For the repayment of the cost of the potato seeds procured by him, he has purchased four demand drafts for Rs.49,000/- each on 28.08.2008 from Karnataka Bank, Kolar drawn in favour of Josan Farm payable at Jallandhar and sent them by speed post in postal cover on 28.08.2008. The Opposite Party Postal Department has not delivered the speed post to its destination. After enquiry from the Josan Farm, the Superintendent of Post Office, Kolar was approached for non-delivery of the postal cover sent by the complainant. The Superintendent of Posts, intimated the complainant on 17.09.2008 that they are enquiring into the matter and later the complainant learnt that in transit the postal cover has been opened by an official of Opposite Party Department and encashed the three demand drafts in all Rs.1,47,000/- from the Bank. The demand drafts are fabricated in the name of Amit Kumar and he is the remitter and drawn the amount. There was no suitable reply from the Postal Authorities for the grievance of the complainant. Hence the notice was issued to the Opposite Party on 28.08.2008 calling upon them to pay the cost for mis-use of the demand drafts. There was no response from the Opposite Party to that notice. Later the Karnataka Bank, Kolar has paid three demand drafts of Rs.1,47,000/- on 12.12.2008. The complainant has incurred loss of interest of Rs.27,240/-. The employee of the Opposite Party has fraudulently and willfully removed the postal articles and took away the demand drafts and utilized for his own benefits. Hence the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the loss caused to him. Hence this complaint was filed for recovery of the interest amount of Rs.27,240/-.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 has filed the version and contented that the Opposite Party is willing to settle the dispute as per Law, but the complainant is not entitled for award of damage of Rs.27,240/-, but he is entitled for Rs.44/- only. It is stated that under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, he is not liable to pay any damage and only he has to pay double the charges paid by the complainant for the speed post. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service ?
Point No.2: If so, to which reliefs the complainant is entitled?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Affirmative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: The Opposite Party has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi rendered in Revision Petition No. 15/1997 and in that judgment the Hon’ble National Commission has considered the scope of Rule 66B of the Post Office Act and it observed that “compensation shall be double the amount of composite speed post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less”. In that case, it is also observed that in certain cases insurance is compulsory when the article sent by post includes, bank notes, etc., and without insurance the Postal Department is not liable. The ratio of the above decision is applicable to the facts of the present case. The Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 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 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, misdelivery or delay of or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Relying on the above provisions and the above decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages and he is only entitled to claim the amount double the amount paid by him for speed post. Hence the Opposite Party is liable to pay only Rs.44/-. Accordingly this point No.1 is answered.
6. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on point No.1 the complainant is entitled to collect Rs.44/- from the Opposite Party. It is held that the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages against the Opposite Party. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party shall be liable to pay only Rs.44/- to the complainant. The other claims of the complainant are rejected. This order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 06th day of August 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
