BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, B.A.,LL.B.,President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 30th day of May, 2008
C.C.No. 166/07
Between:
Sri. Suresh Kumar, S/o. Jestmal Jain,
Suresh Trading Company, P.N. Road, Adoni.
… Complainant
Versus
The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kurnool. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Suresh Kumar, complainant (in person) and Sri. M.D.V.J Sarma, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.166/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to pay Rs.5,500/- towards value of parcel and Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant on 21-6-2007 sent a parcel under a registered post at Adoni Head Post Office, vide receipt No.489 to “Shaila International, 4/c Nagmatia Colony, Gaya _ 1 (Bihar), the said parcel contained valuables of Rs.5,500/-, but the parcel did not reach the said addressee. The said missing registered parcel was informed to opposite party by a letter and the opposite partyreply dated 3-8-2007 informing that they are enquiring into it and will write again shortly. Thereafter, there was no response from the opposite party nor no information was given as to registered parcel booked. Hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of postal receipt bearing No. 489 dated 21-6-2007 and (2) letter dated 1-8-2007 of Superintendent of post offices, Kurnool addressed to the complainant.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party admits the complainant booking a registered parcel on 21-6-2007 and the said parcel did not reach the addressee. The complainant on 1-8-2007 made a complaint with opposite party about non reaching of parcel, immediately the opposite party enquired about the missing parcel and on enquiry with Assistant Head Record Kolkata, it was revealed that the efforts made by them for tracing the missing parcel have proved in vain. The opposite party further submits that regarding the value of the parceled article, the complainant has not disclosed about the article at the time of booking and so far not disclosed the actual contends of the registered parcel and did not produce any bill as to the actual value of the parcel. It also submits that if the value of the registered parcel is more than Rs.600/- it should be insured for safe delivery as per Rule 165 of post office Guide Part I, in this case of the complainant did not disclosed the value of the parcel. As such the complainants parcel is not insured the liability for loss of article is restricted to Rs.100/- only as per Rule 163 of post office guide part I and lastly submits that claim of the complainant is arbitrary, highly excessive and baseless and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party did not file any documents in support of their case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to :-
8. It is the case of the complainant that he booked a registered parcel on 21-6-2007 vide Ex.A1 to Shaila International, Gaya I (Bihar) and the said parcel was valued Rs.5,500/- and the said parcel did not reach Gaya I (Bihar). On complaint made by the complainant the opposite party replied vide Ex.A2 dated 1-8-2007 stating the matter is under enquiry and inform latter. But till day nothing was informed to the complainant. On the other side the opposite party in his written version averments submitted that they have received a complaint from the complainant, as to the missing registered parcel and efforts were made to trace out the missing article but were in vain. It further submitted that as the registered parcel is not insured their liability is only to Rs.100/- as per rule 163 of post office guide part I. Hence, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party and the liability of opposite party is restricted to Rs.100/- only.
9. The complainant in his complaint averments alleged that he suffered mental agony, as there was no response from opposite party about the missing parcel till he filed his complaint before the forum. Therefore, the complainant sought for payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. The compensation sought by the complainant is on higher side and , it will be quite reasonable and proper to award an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation.
10. The other relief of the complainant is that the parcel was valued Rs.5,500/- and sought for return of said amount, but no substantiating material is filed by the complainant in support of his averment and nothing is filed also what the parcel contained. Hence, the said relief is rejected.
11. To sum up, as there appears clear deficiency of service on opposite party the opposite party for the registered missing parcel is liable to pay Rs.100/- as per Rule 163 of post office guide part I and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for the suffered mental agony along with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
12 the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the above award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this 30th day of May 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Appendix of evidence
Witness examined
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil
Documents marked
For the Complainant:
Ex.A-1. Xerox copy of postal receipt bearing No.489
dated 21-6-2007..
Ex.A-2. Letter dated 1-8-2007 of superintendent of post office,
Kurnool, addressed to the complainant.
For the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1. Sri. Suresh Kumar, for the complainant.(in person)
2. Sri.M.D.V.J Sarma, Advocate, for the opposite Party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
