BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of June, 2006
C.C.No.151/2005
S. Syam Prasad Rao,
S/o. Late Narasinga Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o. D.No. 28, Bhaskar Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Office of Superintendent of Post Offices,
Opp. to Colse Junior College, Kurnool.
2. The Area Post-Man of Gowli Street,
C/o. Head Post Office, Kurnool.
3. The Area Post-Man of Bhaskar Nagar,
C/o. Bhagya Nagar Post Office, Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for order in the presence of Sri M/s. M.R. Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 to 3, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties each to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for their deficiency of service for avoiding complainant’s letter addressed to Ammi Reddy, D.S.P., Kurnool and returned the same on false endorsement, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant addressed a letter to one Ammi Reddy who is Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool on 10-5-2005 through speed post bearing No. EE68783962 IN. The said cover was returned to the complainant on 20-5-2005 in his absence with an endorsement as addressee absent from the headquarters for a period of 7 days. When observed the returned cover it was totally opened at the bottom and the said Ammi Reddy might have read over the contents of said letter and returned it with false endorsement. It is also learned that said Ammi Reddy managed opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 returned the said cover with false endorsement and in previous various occasions also same act was done by opposite parties and on enquiries, the complainant came to know that said Ammi Reddy was in headquarters during the said period from 12-5-2005 to 18-5-5005. The complainant further submits that if the addressee (Ammi Reddy) is not available the said cover shall be handed over to the Camp Clerk, it is clear that opposite parties did not discharged their duties. Hence, it comes under deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant caused legal notice dated 20-6-2005 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 replied to the complainant stating that the matter is under investigation and till now no action is taken against the postman i.e. opposite party No.2. Hence, the complainant resorted to the Forum for reliefs.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz. (1) Monthly report of Sri. Ammi Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool for the month of May 2005 (2) Returned speed post cover (3) Legal notice dated 18-6-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1 (4) Acknowledgement by opposite party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex.A3 and (5) Letter dated 20-6-2005 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and 2 suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 and 3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties alleges that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denies all the allegations made in the complaint, but admits a speed post cover addressed to Sri. Ammi Reddy, DSP, Kurnool was received by the Head Post Office, Kurnool and sincere attempts were made by the concerned post man to serve the said cover on the addressee, as addressee was continuously not available for 7 days the said cover was returned to the complainant with suitable endorsement. The postal authorities cannot compel the third party (addressee) to receive the article, if the said third party does not choose to receive the article. Thus, it is absolutely false that the opposite parties did not discharged their duties and speed post article was meddled with.
6. The opposite parties further submits that after received legal notice of the complainant, matter was put under investigation, after investigation it was revealed that there was no malafide intention or willful dereliction of duties on part of concerned postman. Thus there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- is totally baseless and highly excessive and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. The opposite parties in support of their case filed the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and no documents are filed. The opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and the complainant suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficit conduct on part of opposite parties:?
9. It is a simple case of the complainant that he addressed a cover vide Ex.A2 to Sri. Ammi Reddy, DSP, Kurnool on 10-5-2005 through speed post and the said cover was returned on 20-5-2005 with an endorsement of concerned postman as addressee absent continuously for 7 days, the main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No.2 concerned postman was managed by the addressee (Ammi Reddy), therefore, the speed post cover was returned to the complainant with wrong endorsement. But as against to it the written version of opposite parties submits that the concerned postman made sincere attempts to deliver said speed post cover, as the addressee was continuously not available at the given address the said cover was returned with endorsement as out of headquarters. It was argued by the complainant’s counsel that if the addressee is not available then the letter should have been served on the camp clerk but the said letter was addressed to the individual, then the cover should be served to the individual only. If the said letter was addressed in the official capacity then it is the duty of the concerned postman to serve the letter on the camp clerk.
10. Here, in this case it is alleged by the complainant that the concerned postman was managed by the addressee and it was returned, in the absence of any supporting material or any cogent material the said allegations of the complainant remained as allegation for allegation sake without any proof, mere fact that the speed post cover was returned, the case of deficiency in service cannot be spilt out more so in view of the decisions of National Commission reported in I 2000 CPJ page 28 = 2001 CPR page 34 wherein, it was held that no relief can be granted in such cases to the complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non delivery of postal article. Therefore, in view of the above decision there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant miserably fail to prove that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties and the complaint is dismissed.
11. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant :Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Monthly report of Sri. Ammi Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Kurnool for the month of May 2005.
Ex A.2 Returned speed post cover.
Ex A.3 Legal notice dated 18-6-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to
opposite party No.1.
Ex A.4 Acknowledgement by opposite party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex.A3.
Ex A.5 Letter dated 20-6-2005 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri M/s. M.R. Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
