BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T. Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 26th day of November , 2010
C.C.No 58/10
Between:
Smt. T.V. Lakshmi, W/o. T.Suryanarayana,
H.No.62-95, Fort, Kurnool- 518 001.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Superintendent, Head Post Office,
Near Old Bus-stand, Kurnool 518 001.
….…Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Y. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. M.D.Y.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. M. Krishna Reddy, Male Member)
C.C.58/10
1. This complaint is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking a direction on OP for the payment of the claim, made under different heads.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s daughter Smt. T.Suneetha and her husband are residing in Kawasaki, Japan since May 2009. The complainant booked a parcel disclosing the contents at Head post office, Kurnool on 30-10-2009 to send it to her daughter at Kawasaki, Japan paying Rs.3,590/- towards postal parcel charges. The parcel contains rice ,dal , etc., But on 07-11-2009 the OP informed the complainant that the parcel returned and the postal charges he received were not be repayable. The complainant submits that once the parcel is accepted after collecting necessary postal charges,the OP has no right to return it without any reason. Annoyed by the attitude of the OP, he got legal notice issued to OP and as the OP did not respond properly he was compelled to file a complaint seeking appropriate reliefs.
3. Documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4 and sworn affidavit are filed in support of his case.
4. OP filed written version which submits that the complainant booked one foreign parcel bearing No. 596 addressed to Ravi Kumar, Japan weighting 18 kgs at head post office, Kurnool on 30-10-2009 paying Rs.3,590/- towards postal charges, not disclosing its contents . The parcel was immediately transmitted to foreign post, chennai for its onward transmission to Japan. But on 04-11-2009 , The director , Foreign post Chennai, returned the parcel with an endorsement “contains rice, prohibited by customs , vide EXIM policy, hence returned ”. The said parcel was returned to the complainant on 07-11-2009 . The Op denied that he informed the complainant that he would not repay the postal charges of Rs.3,590/- . Immediately after receiving legal notice from the complainant on 14-11-2009, the OP addressed a letter to the Director, Foreign post, Chennai seeking EXIM policy particulars which prevented the transmission of booked parcel to Japan. Responding to the said letter, The director Foreign post, Chennai sent a letter enclosing relevant documents pertaining to the EXIM policy of Government of India, whose copy is filed along with the written version. For the reasons stated above the parcel containing rice of the complainant could not be sent to Japan. Hence there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of OP and it is prayed or the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. In support of his case, OP filed sworn affidavit and documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2.
6 Both parties filed written arguments.
7. Hence the points for consideration are
1.whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of OP sustaining its liability on his claim.
2.What is the amount of compensation that can be awarded to him?
8. point No.1:- Admittedly the complainant booked a parcel at Head Post Office, Kurnool praying parcel charges Rs.3,590/- . The parcel contains rice dal and other items and were declared at the time of booking. Ex.A1 is the postal receipt issued by Head post office, Kurnool. The value of the contents of the parcel was Rs.897/-. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of the bill issued by Raghu stores, Kurnool. The parcel was destrinated to Kawasaki, Japan booked infaovur of Ravi Kumar. The contention of the complainant is that once of the parcel is accepted it has to be delivered at the destination since he paid necessary postal charges. The goods are also got damaged as they are kept long time in the parcel. The contention of OP is that after booking he transmitted the parcel to foreign post at Chennai for its onward transmission to Japan, but the Director , foreign post returned the parcel as it contains goods like rice ,dal etc , prohibited by customs department for export vide EXIM policy. Such contention is not acceptable and does not absolve the primary responsibility of OP as incharge of booking point in Head Post Office, Kurnool . His ignorance about EXIM policy can not be appreciated.
8. In view of what is stated above the forum holds that the complainant has established all facts entitling him to receive the compensation under different heads as claimed by him.
9. Point No:-2 Now the question is what is the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to him. The claim made by the complainant is excessive. In the Ex.A4 filed by the complainant , it is mentioned that the cost of goods as Rs.897/- and as per Ex.A1 the parcel charged paid is Rs.3,590/-.
The OP did not take any action on the basis of complaint made to him and inspite of legal notice. He showed callous indifference in responding to the complainant. Therefore he is entitled compensation for mental agony .
10. For the reasons set out above, the complaint is allowed directing the OP to pay Rs.897/- and Rs.3,590/- being the cost of goods and parcel charges, Rs.1,500/- for mental agony and Rs.500/- towards the cost of the case payable with in 30 days from the date of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of November , 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Postal parcel charges receipt dt.30-10-2009 issued by OP.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dt.14-11-2009.
Ex.A3. Postal acknowledgement along with postal receipt No.3482.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of bill issued by Raghu Stores, Kurnool,
dt.30-10-2008
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of Document evidencing the said Return of the parcel by the authorities of Chennai Post dt. 04-11-2009.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of letter office of the Director of Foreign Post, Chennai dt. 18-09-2009 along with the relevant documents pertaining to the EXIM policy of the Government of India.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
