BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 32/11.
THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sri. Syed Mehaboob Pasha S/o. Late Abdul Kareem, Proprietor, Syed Kareem & Sons, H.No. 11-12-38/1, Brestwarpet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Superintendent of Posts, Department of Posts, Gunj Circle, Raichur- 584101.
2. The Post Master, Department of Posts, Head Post
Office, Near City Municipal Council, Raichur-584101.
3. The Post Man of Mydarwadi Area, Raichur done
duty from 18-04-2011 to 21-04-2011, C/o. The Post
Master, Head Post Office, Raichur-584101.
4. The Post Man done duty at Kot-tlar area from 18-
04-2011 to 20-04-2011 c/o.The Post Master, Head
Post Office, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint . Further, he has also sought for cost of the litigation.
Date of institution :- 13-05-11.
Notice served :- 24-05-07.
Date of disposal :- 23-08-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.Keshava Rao, Advocate.
Opposite Parties No-1 to 4 represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, D.G.P.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member
This is a complaint filed U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Syed Mehaboob Pasha against the four Respondents (1) The Superintendent of Post Office, Gunj Circle, Raichur, (2) The Post Master, Department of Posts, Head Post Office Raichur, (3) The Post Man of Myadarwadi Area, Raichur and (4) The Post Man, Kot-talar, Area, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant has got issued an important legal notices dt. 18-04-11 under RPAD to the two addresses by name (1) Gopal Singh S/o. Narasingh Bhan, R/o. H.No. 12-9-82 Raichur and his close relative (2) Prem Singh S/o. Ram Singh R/o. H.No. 2-4-136 Kot-talar, Raichur vide RPAD Receipts Nos. A. 3658 & A.3659 dt. 18-04-11 respectively. But the Respondent No-3 in collusion with the addressee No.-1 Sri. Gopal Singh without serving the same on him, as illegally returned the RPAD cover containing the said notice on the very next of posting to the sender i.e, the counsel for the complainant for falsely endorsing on the said cover as “Addressee 7 days out of station’ on 19-04-11. The said deliberate false and fraudulent endorsement makes it manifestly clear that, the opposite No-3 was in hand in glove with the said addressee and thereby master minded to return the same for wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant. Further it is the case of the complainant that, after receipt of the said RPAD covers by the postal authorities he approached the competent authorities of the postal department and brought the same to the notice of opposite party No-1 by enclosing the xerox copy of the said RPAD cover which bears the false endorsement and put a claim of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of interest caused to him on account of the deliberate illegal return of the said mail. Apart from this the complainant has got issued another set of the same mail notice on the very next day to the said addressee Sri. Gopal Singh S/o. Narasingh Bhan on 21-04-11 vide RPAD Receipt No. A.4034, as it was very much essential for the complainant. But utter surprisingly the opposite Party No-3 in collusion with the said addressee once again made a false endorsement on 23-04-11 as the ‘addressee delivery time not found’ and send back the same to the sender on 23-04-11 itself without waiting for the 7 days as prescribed under the law. The said endorsement also speaks volumes about the reckless, irresponsible and dishonest and discharges of the solemn duties of the opposite parties. After this once again the complainant has brought to the notice of opposite party No-1 about the said high handed act of his department in causing huge loss to the interest of the complainant in deliberately not serving the said RPAD notice even second time also by enclosing the xerox copy of the said cover with the endorsement and thereby claimed the enhanced the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- but for this the opposite party has sent a casual reply to each of the letters by saying that, the said complaints were being looked into.
Further it is the case of the complainant that, the notice issued to the address No-2 Prem Singh was also returned by the opposite Party No-4 with the deliberate false endorsement of address not found on 19-04-11 and 20-04-11 without waiting for 7 days. Thus, the opposite Party No-4 also colluded with the said addressee and returned the same against the postal rules.
The case of the complainant that, the service of the said notices on the addresses is very important as they were proceeding with the unlawful construction in the property in respect of which the complainant got degree against them in O.S.No. 25/09 on the file of the Learned Additional Civil Judge, Raichur, the persons against whom the said notices have been sent have started further construction even inspite of their undertaken for not to proceed with the construction and even after the complainant succeeding the suit for specific performance against them. The service of the notice would have been a documentary evidence for the complainant to show that, unlawful construction process at the said period so as to file the same in the Hon’ble High Court had it been served by the opposite parties to the said addresses. The complainant thus suffered huge loss because of the deliberate non service of the said notices by the opposite parties. The deliberate non service of the RPAD notices or unpardonable mistakes which are to be curbed at the root level itself otherwise the trade and merchandiles etc., suffers from serious set backs and the said situation will also lead to chaos and disorders. The opposite party No-2 being the immediate superior of the opposite Nos. 3 & 4 is also grossly negligent in allowing the said unlawful return of the RPAD mails. The deliberate non service of the notice containing three RPAD covers altogether apparent false endorsement of returns and also corresponding infringement of the interest of the complainant therefore the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint . Further, he has also sought for cost of the litigation.
2. In response to service of notice Ops 1 to 4 appeared through District Government Pleader. Op.No-1 has filed written statement which is adopted by other Ops. The Ops have admitted about the booking of RPAD at Raichur Head Post Office, on 18-04-11 bearing the No. A.3658 and A.3659 addressed to one Sri. Gopal Singh and Prem Singh. The opposites in their written version contended that, the R.L.No. 3658 booked at Raichur H.O. on 18-04-11 was received at Raichur Mukram, Gunj Post Office, on 19-04-11 and issued to the Post Man for delivery on the same day. When the Post Man visited residence of addressee i.e, Gopal Singh S/o. Narsingh Bhan, he was informed that the addressee was not their in the Headquarter, hence the Post Man passed the remark on the article as ‘Addressee 7 days out of station’. Hence the article under registration was returned to sender on the same day so that, the sender may get the information soon about the non availability of the addressee. It is not correct to say that, Post Man in sheer collusion with the addressee passed the false remarks because if party was found in the station while taking the article u/r to the addressee. The article might have been delivered to the addressee. The allegations made against the Post Man are false one and same was denied since the addressee was out of station during visit of Post Man on 19-04-11 to deliver the article. Hence same was returned to the sender on the same day.
Further it is also admitted by the Respondent that, another R.L. bearing No. A.4034 dt. 21-04-11 received for delivery in the name of Gopal Singh S/o. Narsingh Bhan on 23-04-11. The same was issued to the Post Man on the same day for the delivery on the day also the Post Man visited the residence of the addressee he found that the addressee was not present in his residence. Hence the Respondent No-3 passed the remarks as ‘addressee delivery time not found’ and the article was returned to the sender on the same day without keeping in the deposit for 7 days. Further, it was also admitted about the lodging of the complaint in this regard with opposite No-1 on vide letter dt. 26-04-11 which was received on 27-04-11 and as per the procedure the complaint was acknowledged on the same day and intimated that, ‘matter will be enquired into’. The matter got enquired and finally reply given to be complainant on 02-06-11.
The opposites further contended that, the R.L. No. 3659 dt. 18-04-11 addressed to Sri. Prem Singh received at Raichur Head Post Office, on 19-04-11 and same was issued to Post Man on the same day for delivery, when the Post Man visited the residence of the addresses he was not found, hence as per DG circular No. 02-07-09 PO dt. 30-07-09 the Post Man served the intimation to the family members in which it was intimated clearly that, article will be brought again on 20-04-11 for delivery and requested the addressee to present in the home when Post Man attends next day. Further it was also mentioned in the intimation that, if the addressee did not take delivery on 20-04-11 it will be kept in deposit and returned to the sender after period of 7 days from the date of receipt of article accordingly the Post Man carried the article on 20-04-11 also. On that day also the addressee was not present. Hence the article was kept deposit in the office for period of 7 days and found no claim against receiving of article by the addressee hence returned to the sender on 28-04-11. Further it is contended that, the Respondent not aware of any complainant decree in the case No. 25/09 of the Raichur Additional Civil Court etc., there is no deliberate not service of RPAD notices. There is no any bad intention or was done in collusion with the addressee to return of the three RPADs the allegations made by the complainant are all false. The actual facts noticed by the Post man or noted in the wrapper or R.L.s and returned the same to the sender. There is no negligence shown by the Respondents in delivery of R.L.s when the complaint is received it was enquired and suitable reply given to the complainant. Hence there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Respondents and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-12. In rebuttal the Ops have filed sworn-affidavit of Op.No-1 by way of examination-in-chief which is adopted by other Ops. The three documents filed by the opposites were got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. The D.G.P. for Ops has not present even the case was called out on two different times. No one has represented, hence it has taken as no arguments by the opposites. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:
1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Ops for non service of the RPAD notices, as alleged.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?
5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-
1. In the affirmative.
2. As per final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. There is no dispute that the complainant had sent a registered letter/cover No. A.3658 & A.3659 on 18-04-11 addressed to Sri. Gopal Singh S/o. Narasingh Bhan R/o. H.No. 12-9-82 Raichur and Sri. Prem Singh S/o. Ram Singh R/o. H.No. 2-4-136 Kot talar, Raichur respectively. It is also not in dispute that, the R.L. No. 3658 booked at Raichur, HO was returned to sender on 19-04-11 with an endorsement as ‘Addressee 7 days out of station’. Further it is also not in dispute that, another R.L. bearing No. A.4034 dt. 21-04-11 received for delivery in the name of Sri. Gopal Singh S/o. Narasingh Bhan on 23-04-11 and same were returned without keeping in the deposit for 7 days on 23-04-11 with an endorsement by the Respondent No-3 as ‘Addressee delivery time not found’. Further it is also not in dispute that, the R.L. No. 3659 dt. 18-04-11 addressed to Sri. Prem Singh S/o. Ram Singh H.No. 2-4-136 Kot talar Raichur and same was returned to the sender on 28-04-11 with an endorsement as ‘Un claimed Returned to sender’ against receiving of article by the addressee.
Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainant had lodged the complaint on 26-04-11 regarding the Non service of the RPAD covers against the addressee.
According to the complainant, through these registered covers he had sent legal notices to addressee by name Gopal Singh & Prem Singh intimating about their undertaking given before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka regarding further construction over the property described in O.S. No. 25/09 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge, Raichur and service of the said notices would have been a documentary evidence for the complainant to show the unlawful construction process at the said period so as to file the same before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, had it been served by the opposite parties to the said addressee.
7. The complainant has filed Copy of the Legal Notice dt. 18-04-11 and its receipt for having sent to addressee by name Gopal Singh and Prem Singh at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-1(1) & Ex.P-1(2). He has produced Returned Postal Cover sent to Gopal Singh at Ex.P-2. Office copy of legal notice dt. 21-04-11 issued by RPAD and its receipts at Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-3(1). Un served postal covers sent to Gopal Singh and Prem Singh on 21-04-11 and on 18-04-11 at Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-5. The complaint made by the counsel for complainant to the Respondent No-1 through RPAD letter dt. At Ex.P-6 and its Receipt & Acknowledgement s at Ex.P-6(1) & Ex.P-6(2) respectively. The letter dt. 26-04-11 written by Respondent No-1 to the counsel for complainant at Ex.P-7 and its cover at Ex.P-7(1). The RPAD letter dt. 26-04-11 written by complainant to the Respondent No-1 at Ex.P-8 and its postal receipt & acknowledgement at Ex.P-8(1) & Ex.P-8(2) respectively. The letter written by Respondent No-1 to the counsel for complainant at Ex.P-9. The two Registered letters dt. 02-06-11 written by Respondent No-1 to counsel for complainant at Ex.P-10 & Ex.P-11 and their covers are marked at Ex.P-12 & Ex.P-12(1).
The opposites have filed three documents namely: the Attested copy of DG Circular No. 02-07/2009 dt. 30-07-09 marked at Ex.R-1. Intimation slip marked at Ex.R-2 and Explanation on standard remarks at Ex.R-3.
8. The opposites in their written version have clearly admitted that, the complainant has sent three registered letters to the addressee by name Gopal Singh & Prem Singh on different dates. Further it is also admitted that, same were returned to the sender without delivering the same for the reasons mentioned on the said undelivered covers. It is the case of the opposite is that, the non delivery of the said three covers is not for any intentional reasons or deliberate one but for the reasons as mentioned on the covers which have been returned to the sender. But after receiving the complaint from the complainant counsel through letter dt. 23-04-11 and 26-04-11 marked at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-8 the opposite No-1 has made enquiry with subordinate officers those who are concerned for to deliver the same, he came to know that, the endorsement made in respect of the return of R.L. No. 3658 booked at Raichur, HO as ‘Party out of station for 7 days’ is in correct. Further regarding endorsement made in respect of the return of R.L. No. 4034 booked at Raichur, HO as ‘Addressee not found during the delivery time’ is also in correct and same was intimated to the counsel for the complainant through letter dt. 02-06-11 marked at Ex.P-10 & Ex.P-11. This clearly goes to show that, there was a mistake done by the officials of the Respondent No-1 one who is responsible for to serve the R.L. to the addressee. Further, these two letters were also clearly speaks about their mistake which was committed due to pressure of work. It means, the non delivery of the notices sent by the complainant to the addressee was not as the reasons contained in their written statement and mentioned on the postal covers which were returned to the sender.
9. From the above said version of the opposite No-1, the officials of the opposites have failed to perform their duty whether it may be due to rush of work or for any other reasons. However, it is a clear cut case of admission of non delivery of the R.L.s to the addressee as the reasons mentioned on the undelivered covers and the written version filed by the opposites. So, all these factors are taken into account, it amply shows deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in not delivering the registered cover to the addressee. Therefore, viewed from any angles, we find clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposites. Therefore Point No-1, is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% along with cost of litigation. The complainant has not filed any documents to show that, he has suffered with such huge amount as he claimed under the complaint. Hence, in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, it just and proper to award global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- including cost of litigation, deficiency in service., with interest at the rate of 9% interest from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
The Ops shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint till realization of the full amount to the complainant including cost of litigation etc.,
The Ops shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-08-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
