Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant Sri. K.K. Mathew, Personal Assistant, Office of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, BSNL, Adoor has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of this complaint is as follows: On 16.09.2006, the complainant sent a registered letter to M/s. Indian Stamp Co., Bridge Road, Opposite Mission Compound, Chippi Tank, Meerut vide Rt. No. RL A3569 from Adoor Post Office. The contents of the registered letter was philatelic materials worth Rs.1,000/-. The said registered letter has not been delivered to the addressee. On getting the information of non-delivery of the registered letter, the complainant had sent Demand Draft for Rs.1,000/- to the addressee to compensate the value of the philatelic materials. On 5.10.2006, the complainant filed a complaint before the first opposite party regarding the non-delivery of the registered letter. On verifying the status of the complaint through the Web based customer grievance handling system, there was a remark from Meerut Office that “RL does not appear to have been received in Meerut Cannt. HO-October 18, 2006”. There is no further reply from the department. On 26.12.2006, Adalat was conducted by the opposite parties at Pathanamthitta then the complainant’s complaint was taken up during the Adalat. The first opposite party tried to settle his complaint on payment of Rs.100/- as compensation and the complainant did not agree with this amount as his loss is more than Rs.1,000/-. On 18.12.2006, a letter has been sent to the first opposite party to the complainant stating that “necessary enquiries were made but the final disposal of the article has not been traced. Therefore you are requested to intimate whether the case has been settled at your end”. An application form for claiming compensation is also sent to him. The complainant had sent claim application duly filled up with the endorsement that “he is prepared to withdraw his complaint if full compensation of Rs.1,000/- is paid to him”. On 18.09.2007, the first opposite party through his letter informed him that the registered letter under reference was delivered to the addressee on 22.09.2006. On getting the information, he enquired the matter to M/s. Indian Stamp Co., who intimated that the letter is not received by them. After that, on 21.09.2007, complaint had sent a letter to the Director (Public Grievances), Department of Post Offices, New Delhi requesting him to conduct a detailed enquiry on this subject. There is no reply from him regarding this letter. Then first opposite party intimated him that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 22.09.2006 and the addressee delivered the same. The complainant had sent an application to Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut under RTI to send a copy of the delivery slip dated 22.09.2006 of said registered letter. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut vide letter dated 24.10.2007 intimated him that the registered letter in question is received at Meerut Cannt. POs. but lost and not delivered to the addressee and also stated that action is being taken against the erring official. Again on 3.11.2007, he had sent a letter to the Superintendent of Post Offices, at Meerut to pay the compensation of Rs.1,500/- including his expenses incurred for postage and correspondence. The complainant had also sent a letter to the Deputy Director General (Public Grievance), New Delhi for a detailed enquiry and arrangement for the payment of Rs.1,500/- as compensation. But there is no reply from anywhere and no action has been taken by them. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for his loss and for getting a sum of Rs.500/- as his expenses for correspondence and Rs.2,500/- as compensation for his mental agony and sufferings by giving false information along with cost of this proceedings. The complainant prays for passing an order in favour of him. 3. The first opposite party has filed a common version for himself and on behalf of the second opposite party with the following contentions: The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had sent a registered letter to M/s. Indian Stamp Co., Beegum Bridge Road, Opposite Mission Chippi Tank, Meerut from Adoor P.O. vide receipt No.3569 on 16.09.2006. The said registered letter was not packed in the presence of any postal officials or the contents of the letter was not disclosed. On 5.10.2006 a complaint was registered by the complainant in the web based customer grievance handling system and the opposite parties have found out that the registered letter was not delivered to the addressee. The opposite parties main contention is that as per the provisions contained in Post Office Guide Vol. I, Clause 170(1) 1985 Edn., the complainant is entitled to get only an ex-gratia compensation of Rs.100/- and the complaint refused the same. There is no provision to pay compensation to the extent of the value of the contents of any registered letter. The opposite parties admitted that on 18.09.2007, on the basis of the information from Meerut Postal Division, the first opposite party informed the complainant that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 22.09.2006. The complainant has no allegation that the complainant’s registered letter lost by the fraudulent act or default of a particular officer of opposite parties. The valuable articles sent by post can be insured and if it had been insured, department is liable. But it was not insured. Therefore, opposite parties are not liable to pay the loss sustained by the complainant as they have not committed any deficiency of service. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A17 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by him. Evidence from the side of the opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the first opposite party and the documents produced by them, which are marked as Exts.B1 to B4. After closure of evidence, both sides heard. 6. Point No.1: The complainant availed service from the opposite parties after payment and the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is a consumer dispute. Hence, this complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 7. Point Nos. 2 & 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit along with 17 documents. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A17 on the basis of the proof affidavit. Ext.A1 is the copy of postal receipt of registered letter; Ext.A2 is the letter to the Postmaster, Adoor sent by the complainant stating the non-receipt of the registered letter sent from there. Ext.A3 is the copy of the Demand Draft for Rs.1,000/- drawn in favour of M/s. Indian Stamp Co., Meerut. Ext.A4 is the copy of acknowledgment letter dated 6.10.2006 from Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta. Ext. A5 is the copy of the status of the complainant taken through web based customer grievances handling system-dated 11.10.2006. Ext.A6 is the copy of letter-dated 16.12.2006 addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta for considering his complaint in the Adalath. Ext.A7 is the copy of letter No.CR/F2/3a 135/06-07 dated 18.12.2006 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta sent to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the copy of the application form for grant of compensation in respect of accountable article filled by the complainant. Ext.A9 is the copy of letter No.CR/F2/3a-135/07-08 dated 18.09.2007 from Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Ext.A10 is the copy of letter-dated 21.09.2007 sent to the Director, Department of Posts by the complainant. Ext.A11 is the copy of application under RTI Act dated 5.10.2007 sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, UP by the complainant. Ext.A12 is the copy of the letter-dated 24.12.2007 received from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut by the complainant. Ext.A13 is the copy of the letter-dated 3.11.2007 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut sent by the complainant. Ext.A14 is the copy of letter-dated 9.11.2007 to the Deputy Director General (PG&QA), Department of Posts, New Delhi sent by the complainant. Ext.A15 is the copy of letter-dated 5.12.2007 from Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut sent to the complainant. Ext. A16 is the copy of the letter sent by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Ext.A17 is the certificate of merit received by the complainant during 2007. 8. In order to prove the contentions raised by the opposite parties, they have produced a proof affidavit along with 4 documents. The documents produced by them were marked as Exts.B1 to B4 on the basis of their proof affidavit. Ext.B1 is the copy of the complaint registered by the complainant on 5.10.2005 in their web based customer grievance handling system. Ext.B2 is the copy of search bill sent to the complainant on 18.10.2006 by the first opposite party. Ext.B3 is the copy of reply to the search bill received from the Postmaster, Meerut Head Post Office vide his letter No.CR/GRC/IN/479/07-8/MT dated 8.09.07 stating that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 22.09.2006. Ext.B4 is the copy of the letter dated 12.10.2007 from Postmaster, Meerut Cantonment informing that the registered letter under reference was received in their office but not delivered to the addressee or returned to the sender, sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta. 9. The complainant’s case is that a registered letter was sent by the complainant through the opposite parties and that registered letter was not delivered to the addressee. The contents of the registered letter was philatelic materials worth Rs.1,000/- and it was sent to M/s. Indian Stamp Co., Beegum Bridge Road, Meerut. On getting the information from the addressee that the philatelic material did not reach there, the complainant had paid Rs.1,000/- to the addressee India Stamp Company to compensate the value of the philatelic material. Several communications were made between the complainant and opposite parties and Post Offices at Meerut. False information such as the registered letter was delivered to the addressee and the addressee declined the letter etc. were given to the complainant. After all these communications, Superintendent of Meerut Post Office informed him that the registered letter was received at Meerut Contonment P.O. and not delivered to the addressee but lost before delivery. The loss of the registered letter and the non-delivery of the registered letter is a deficiency in service from the part of the employees of the department of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable for it. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 10. The opposite parties main contention is that as per the provisions of the P.O. Guide Vol. I, Clause 170(1), the complainant is entitled to get only an ex-gratia compensation of Rs.100/- for his lost registered letter and there is no provision for paying compensation to the extend of value of the contents of the registered letter in the absence of insurance. They further contended that the complainant did not established the loss of the registered letter was due to the fraudulent and willful act or default of a particular official of the department. 11. On going through the evidence of this case, it is clear that the complainant had lost his registered letter sent through opposite parties and which contains philatelic materials worth Rs.1,000/-. Through Ext.B4, the Postmaster of Meerut Contonment P.O., admitted the fact that the registered letter was received at Meerut P.O. but neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to sender. It was lost from Meerut Cantonment P.O. Moreover, before admitting this fact, opposite parties given false information to the complainant that the registered letter was delivered on 22.09.2006 and the addressee declined the registered letter etc. Finally, the complainant made an application to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut to send a copy of delivery slip of the registered letter. In return the Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut intimated him through Ext.A12 that the registered letter in question was received at Meerut Contonment P.O. but lost and not delivered to the addressee and also action is being taken against the erring officials. But the Superintendent of Post Offices at Meerut has not taken any action to redress the grievances of the complainant and there is no information regarding the actions taken against the erring officials. 12. The complainant’s registered letter was lost from Meerut Contonment P.O., but he availed the service from the second opposite party and the second opposite party is under the first opposite party’s division. All are the officials of the Postal Department. The complainant availed service from the opposite parties after remitting the prescribed registration charge of Rs.42/- by believing that the registered letter will be reached safely to the addressee. The opposite parties failed to render their service promptly as per the implied contract between them. 13. In this transaction, the complainant had compensated the loss by paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the Indian Stamp Company at Meerut. For proving the payment, the complainant had produced the copy of Demand Draft. The complainant had sustained financial expenses due to the negligence of the officials of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have the liability to disclose the correct information, but they had given false information through Exts.A5 and A9 and finally first opposite party informed him that the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 22.09.2006, and the addressee declined the letter. All these false information from the side of the opposite parties caused mental agony and financial expenses and other inconveniences to the complainant. On the basis of the evidence in this case, we find gross negligence and clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant. Hence, the reliefs sought for in this complaint is allowable. An order can be passed accordingly. 14. In the result, the complaint is allowed thereby, the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.42/- (Rupees Forty two only) which was collected from the complainant as registration charges and to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), the value of the articles lost (the philatelic materials) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till whole payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings along with a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts so awarded within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest will follow at the rate of 10% per annum for the whole amount till the whole payment. However, the first and second opposite parties are at liberty to realise the entire amount from the concerned officials of the Department who are responsible for this incident. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of December, 2008. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the postal receipts. A2 : Photocopy of the complaint dated 5.10.2006 addressed to Postmaster, Head Post Office, Adoor. A3 : Photocopy of D.D. No.266812 dated 11.10.2006 for Rs.1,000/- drawn in favour of M/s. Indian Stamp Co. Meerut (Canara Bank, Adoor). A4 : Photocopy of the acknowledgment letter dated 6.10.06 from Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta. A5 : Photocopy of the status of the complaint taken to web based customer grievances handling system dated 11.10.06. A6 : Photocopy of letter dated 16.12.06 addressed to Sri. P.C. Varghese, Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta. A7 : Photocopy of the letter dated 18.12.06 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta addressed to K.K. Mathew, BSNL, Adoor. A8 : Photocopy of the application for grant of compensation in respect of Accountable articles dated 20.12.06. A9 : Photocopy of the letter dated 18.9.07 from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta addressed to Sri. K.K. Mathew. A10 : Photocopy of letter dated 21.9.07 sent to the Director (PG) Dept. of Posts, New Delhi from Sri. K.K. Mathew. A11 : Photocopy of application dated 5.10.07 under Right to Information Act 2005. A12 : Photocopy of the letter dated 24.10.07 (in Hindi) received from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut. A13 : Photocopy of letter dated 3.11.07 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut from Sri. K.K. Mathew. A14 : Photocopy of the letter dated 9.11.07 addressed to the Dy. Director General(PG & QA) Dept. of Posts, New Delhi by the complainant. A15 : Photocopy of the letter dated 5.12.07 from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut (in Hindi) A16 : Photocopy of the letter dated 4.3.08 sent by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta to Sri. K.K. Mathew. A17 : Photocopy of the certificate of merit (11th Kerala Philatelic Exhibition) Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of the complaint dated 6.10.06 registered by the complainant in web based customer grievance handling system. B2 : Photocopy of the search bill sent to the complainant on 18.10.2006 by the first opposite party. B3 : Photocoopy of reply to the search bill received from the Postmaster, Meerut Head Post Office. B4 : Photocopy of the letter dated 12.10.2007 from Postmaster, Meerut Cantonment addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta. (By Order) Senior Superintendent.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
