BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

                   Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member 

Sri G. Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),

                                                           Male Member

Monday, the 25^th  day of October 2010

CC. No.  15 of  2010

Between:

N. Sudhakar Goud S/o Anjaiah Goud,

Aged about: 45 years, Occu: Business,

R/o H.No. 9-49, Srinivas Nagar Colony,

Ramchandrapuram, Medak District.                                       … Complainant

          And

1. The Superintendent of Post Office,

Opp: Old Bus Stand,

Sangareddy, Medak dist.

2. The Post Master General of A.P.

Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.                                                    ….Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 12.10.2010 in the presence of  Sri. P. Ravi, advocate for complainant and Sri. N. Shiva Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2, upon hearing arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following

O R D E R

(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                   This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award Rs.10,000/- against opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for deficiency in service and costs.

                   The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

1. The complainant is a resident of Srinivas Nagar Colony, Ramchandrapuram, Medak District. He got a legal notice dated 17.12.2009 issued through his advocate Sri. P. Ravi through registered postal acknowledgement due  to R. Narsimlu vide registration No. 4901 from Head Post Office, Sangareddy. Neither postal acknowledgement nor returned unserved notice received by the complainant’s advocate. As such the complainant got another notice 06.01.2010 issued to R. Narsimlu through the same advocate by registered post acknowledgement due vide registration No. 5522 from Head Post office Sangareddy. Even for this notice neither the postal acknowledgement nor unserved postal cover received by the complainant’s advocate. There upon on 30.01.2010 the complainant’s advocate addressed a letter to opposite party No. 1 to enquire into the matter and intimate whether the two registered letters were served or not. Even for this there is no reply. This is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. As such on 04.03.2010 the complainant’s advocate issued a legal notice to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 demanding Rs.10,000/-  for deficiency in service. The said notice was served on them.

The complainant got notices issued on 17.12.2009 and 06.01.2010 for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- , but for want of information regarding service of notices the complainant could not file suit and thereby he suffered loss of interest on the suit amount. Finally the complainant paid required court fee on 02.03.2010 for filing suit.

After giving notice dated 04.03.2010 opposite party No. 1 addressed a letter dated 17.03.2010 requesting the complainant to intimate the office of booking of the two registered articles and full particulars of addressee i.e. door No, locality etc., for taking necessary action. The two registered notices were sent from the head office itself and the notice dated 30.01.2010 issued to opposite party No. 1 clearly discloses door No., Locality and place. Further along with letter dated 30.01.2010 Xerox copies of postal receipts and copies of legal notices issued to R.Narsimlu were enclosed. Opposite party No. 1 acted very negligently and caused deficiency in service in discharging his duties and to hide his negligence, letter dated 17.03.2010 was addressed to the complainant asking for details of addressee. Opposite party No. 2 being head of the postal department is made a party. As the complainant paid Rs.25/- for each of the registered posts, he is a consumer and in the circumstances the negligence of the Postal department amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

2. The opposite party No. 1 resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a version on the  behalf of the opposite party No. 2. The version in brief is as follows:

Opposite party No. 1 is not aware of the residence of the complainant. It is denied that Sri. P.Ravi Advocate issued notice to R.Ramulu on 17.12.2009 through registered letter acknowledgment due vide R.L. No. 4901 from Sangareddy Head Post office. Booking of the other registered letter on 06.01.2010 at Sangareddy Head Post office is correct. It is denied that the complainant’s advocate addressed letter dated 30.01.2010 to opposite party No. 1 to enquire and intimate whether the two registered post was served or not and that opposite party No. 1 did not give any information and that it amounts to deficiency in service. It is also denied that on 04.03.2010 a notice was given by the complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties and the same was served on them. Letter dated 30.01.2010 and legal notice dated 04.03.2010 or not served on opposite party No. 1 though they are addressed to them. On enquiry it is learnt that they were given in Head Post office, Sangareddy but they were not brought to the notice of opposite party No. 1 therefore no action could be taken. The legal notice dated 04.03.2010 addressed to opposite party No. 2 is served on 10.03.2010. Immediately opposite party No. 2 intimated opposite party No. 1 through  letter dated 12.03.2010 and instructed to enquire. Opposite party No. 1 enquired and noticed that there were no compliants regarding the abouve said issue as such opposite party No. 1 addressed letter dated 17.03.2010 to furnishing  details and particulars of the registered letters to enquire into the matter. Thus there is no negligence nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in discharging their duties. The complainant’s advocate has not furnished the required details. On the other hand the complainant approached this forum to harass the opposite parties. After receipt of the complaint opposite party No. 1 came to know the particulars of registered letters and noticed that the complainant has not booked registered letter No. 4901 on 17.12.2009 through Sangareddy Head Post Office but on enquiry opposite party No. 1 noticed through the documents filed by the complainant that one registered letter No4910 was booked on 17.12.2009. On enquiry the Sub Post Master Chandanagar Post Office, Hyderabad reported that the registered letter No. 4910 dated 17.12.2009 was delivered to the addressee on 21.12.2009 and registered letter No. 5522 dated 06.01.2010 was delivered to the addressee on 21.01.2010. Acknowledgement cards in respect of the registered letters 4910 and 5522 were returned to the sender of the registered letters. But with  dishonest intention to, harass the opposite parties this complaint is filed even after receipt of the acknowledgement cards. The complainant him self is negligent in not sending particulars required in the letter dated 17.03.2010 as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The complainant has not filed evidence affidavit to prove the contents of the complaint. Evidence affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 is filed. Even though the complainant is absent, as sending registered letter is not in dispute, the documents filed by him along with the complaint are marked as Exs.A1 to A8. Copy of the  registration receipt for registered letter No. 4910  is on the back of Ex.A1 legal notice therefore it is marked as Ex.F1 at the instance of the Forum for reference, as the registration Number is mistakenly mentioned in the complaint as 4901.A reading of the version of opposite party No. 1 shows that the said  mistake is not disputed . On behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B7 are marked. On behalf of the complainant there are no written arguments or oral arguments.  Advocate for opposite party filed memo to treat evidence affidavit of opposite party No. 1 as written arguments on behalf of the opposite parties. Oral arguments of advocate for opposite parties are heard. Perused the record.

4.       Point for consideration is whether deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved or not?

Point:

          According to the complainant on 17.12.2009 he got a legal notice sent to one R. Narsimlu vide registration No. 4901 with acknowledgement due from the head post office, Sangareddy. In evidence there of Exs.A1 and F1 are in the record. Ex.F1 shows the registration No. is 4910 but not 4901. Opposite parties version is also that on 17.12.2009 no letter was registered by the complainant’s advocate to R. Narsimlu with registration No. 4901 but enquiry revealed that on the said day letter was sent with registration No. 4910. Complainant’s advocate sending another letter dated 06.01.2010 vide registration receipt No. 5522 from Head Post office, Sangareddy is not in dispute (Exs.A3&A2). The complainant’s version is that he has not received postal acknowledgements in respect of the said two registered letters therefore his advocate addressed a letter on 30.01.2010 under Ex. No.A4 to opposite party No. 1 to enquire and intimate whether the registered letters were served to the addressee or not and as there was no reply he sent a legal notice to opposite party No. 1 on 04.03.2010 under Ex.A5 which was received by him under Ex.A6 . According to the complainant there is no reply even to this. But as seen from Ex.A7the opposite party No. 1 sent the said letter on 17.03.2010 requesting the complainant’s advocate to intimate the office of booking of the above said two registered articles and full particulars of the addressee etc and the said letter was received by the advocate for the complainant before filing of the complaint but without complying with the request made there in, this complaint is filed. The complainant’s version is along with Ex.A4 his advocate sent copies of Exs.A1 &A3. It is to be seen here that they do not contain from which post office articles were registered.

                   As rightly contended by the counsel for the opposite parties Exs.A4 and A5 were addressed to opposite party No. 1 by the advocate for the complainant but instead of sending them to opposite party No. 1 they were handed over to Assistant Post Master in the Sangareddy Head Post Office, for the reasons best known to him. If we think that the counsel intended to save the party from unnecessary expenditure and therefore delivered by hand to the Assistant Post Master in Head Post office at Sangareddy, he can as well do the same in the office of opposite party No. 1 which is also located in Sangareddy itself. It is to be noted here the Head post office and office of the opposite party No. 1 are at a walkable distance from each other. Therefore the contention of counsel for opposite parties  that there is malafide intention in delivering the letters in the Head Post Office which are addressed to Superintendent of Post Offices (opposite party No. 1 ) appears to be acceptable.

                   However the complainant cannot be asked to produce proof that he has not received postal acknowledgements in respect of Exs.A1 and A3 registered letters. When the opposite parties contended that the complainant having received the postal acknowledgments this complainant is filed to harass the opposite parties it is for them to prove the same. The opposite parties have not produced any proof that the complainant received the postal acknowledgements. Having collected Rs.25/- for each of the registered letters covered by Exs.A1 and A3, the opposite parties are expected to do proper service. In the circumstances the complainant is a “consumer” and the dispute between the parties is a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and failure of the opposite parties to deliver postal acknowledgments to the complainant’s advocate in respect of the above said two registered letters amounts to deficiency in service.

The complainant has not produced any specific proof of monetory loss incurred by him due to non receipt of postal acknowledgements. Paying of court fees for filing suit cannot be said to be a loss because as seen from Exs.B3 to B7 R. Narsimlu has received the registered letters and failed to comply with the demand made therein. Therefore filing of suit by the complainant by paying court fee cannot be said to be loss incurred by him.

For the fore going reasons we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to suitable compensation for non receipt of postal acknowledgements  which amounts to deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. The point is answered in favour of the complainant.

5.           In the result the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him due to non receipt of postal acknowledgements. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this litigation. Total amount payable by the opposite parties to the complainant is Rs.2,000/-. One month time is granted for payment of the said amounts. Rest of the claim of the complainant is denied.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this     25^th       day of October, 2010.

            Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                            Sd/-

  PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For the complainant :                                            For the opposite parties:

-Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the  complainant :                                            For the opposite parties:

                                                                                                          Sd/-           

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

Copy to:                                

1. The Complainant        
2. The Opposite parties              copy delivered to the Complainant/
3. Spare copy                                                          Opp.party on ________

Dis.No.       /2010, dt.