BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri.Patel Praveen Kumar,
Male Member.
Tuesday, the 21st day of June, 2011.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.62/2010
Between:
Talluri Mrunal, S/o.Srinivas,
Aged: 23 years, Occu:Student,
R/o.H.No.100, V & M: Nekkonda ,
Warangal District. …Complainant
And
1. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Opposite District & Sessions Court,
Subedari, Hanamkonda of
Warangal District
2. The Head Post Office,
Nekkonda Warangal,
Rep.by its Post Master,
Warangal. …Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :: Sri R.Ananda Rao, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :: Sri L. Jalander Reddy, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This complaint is filed by the complainant Talluri Mrunal against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of their services or pass such other orders.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the B.Sc., graduate and unemployee. The complainant has applied for written examination for the post of Social Security Assistant in Employee’s Provident Fund Organization at Mumbai. The said organization has sent the hall ticket to the complainant through Under Certificate of Posting dated 21-08-2009 i.e., 15 days before the date of examination. The Opposite Party No.2 has served the cover to the complainant on 25-09-09 i.e., after 35 days from the date of dispatch. In the said hall ticket the date of examination:06-09-09 at 9.30 a.m. and the centre of the examination is Little Flower High School, Abids, Hyderabad. Due to delay services of Opposite Parties the complainant lost an opportunity to write the above said examination as he has prepared thoroughly and he is a First Division graduate in B.Sc., and hope that he will succeed in the said examination for secure of the said job. The complainant got issued legal notice to Opposite Parties on 22-07-2010 demanding to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, for which no reply is received. The act of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the deficiency of their services or to pass such other orders.
The Opposite Parties filed the Written Version stating that they denied all the contents of the complaint and the Opposite Parties are specifically denying their negligence on their part in delivering the cover.
Further the Opposite Parties stated that as seen on the cover, the cover was posted in Bombay on 21-08-2009 and the same was received at Nekkonda Post Office on 25-09-2009 and it was delivered to the complainant on the same day without any delay. There is no any delay or negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in delivering the cover.
The Opposite Parties further stated that they are discharging their duties under a statute. Hence, their duties are protected U/s.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, which reads as “the Postal Department shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay 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 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 or default.”
As laid down by the Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A.No.52/2009 vide order dt:03-09-2010 and in view of section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, except the extent of liability undertaken in the express term by the Central Government; it was not liable for loss, mis-delivery or delay and the Opposite Parties requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
The complainant in support of his claim, not filed his Affidavit but marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of Opposite Parties D.Ramanaiah filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2) If so, to what Relief?
Point No.1:-
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
Now this Forum has to see whether there is any delay to delivering the cover at Nekkonda Post Office or not.
On the basis of Written Version and Affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Post Office because in this case the Ex.A-2 i.e. Cover from Mumbai Post Office, as per the stamping cover, the cover was posted at Mumbai on 21-08-2009 and the same was received at Nekkonda Post Office on 25-09-2009 and it was delivered on the same day itselfto the complainant without any delay, there is no any delay on the part of Nekkonda Post Office. After received the cover from Mumbai to Nekkonda, immediately the same was delivered to the party i.e. complainant. We see there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. When there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay anything to the complainant.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that we see no grounds to allow this complaint and accordingly this first point is decided in favour of Opposite Parties against the complainant.
Point No.2: To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of Opposite Parties against the complainant this point is also decided in favour of Opposite Parties against the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 21th June, 2011).
President Male Member
District Consumer Forum, Warangal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Parties
Affidavit of complainant not filed. Affidavit of Opposite Parties filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A-1 is the Original call letter of the complainant from the Employees’ Provident
Fund Organization.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Postal Envelop cover.
3. Ex.A-3 is the Eenadu New Paper ad dt:27-09-2009.
4. Ex.A-4 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dt:22-07-2010 from the complainant’s counsel to
the Opposite Parties.
5. Ex.A-5 is the Postal Receipts (2).
6. Ex.A-6 & Ex.A-7 are the Acknowledgements.
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL -
PRESIDENT
