Order No. 17 Dt.21.01.2016
This is an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner Ahmed praying for an order against the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.100000/- and Rs. 1800/- for the fine to DSP Delhi Public School for non-reaching the cheque to the disciple of the school (sons) and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost.
The case of the petitioner in short: that the petitioner is a railway employee and residing in the rest house of Eastern Railway, Malda Town. Petitioner has two sons, the eldest Dinesh Nawaz and the youngest son is Faishal Nawaz aged 18 and 16 years respectively. The eldest son studying at L.P. University at Punjab and the youngest is a student of Class XI of Delhi Public School at New Delhi. Both the sons are residing in the same mace at Hariyana.
Petioner sent one cheque of Rs.135000/- in the name of Delhi Public School, Sonepath along with two concessional railway ticket from Panipath to Sahebganj and Sahebganj to Panipath through speed post to his youngest son Faishal Nawaz on 15.10.2014. The address was clearly written in the envelope.
He sent the said money for the charge of the tuition fees and hostel accommodation with food and lodging but the said letter was not delivered 29.10.2014.
Both the sons of the petitioner rushed to the office of the RMS New Delhi for getting information of the above articles but in vain. So they came to Malda by root for collecting money for their hostel and college fees from their father at Malda.
The article which was sent by speed post ultimately reached on 29.10.2014 at Delhi, Sonepath and his son received the said articles.
The school was going to be closed on 20.10.2014 and the last date of payment of tuition fees was 20.10.2014. Due to non-delivery of the said articles the School Authority imposed fine of Rs. 1800/- from his son. The petitioner lodged complaint stating the non-delivery within the reasonable time as per the rules on 28.10.2014 to the Supdt.of R.M.S. S.D. Division through Malda R.S.M. but no proper step was taken by the authority. The petitioner filed this case before this Forum claiming relief of Rs. 100000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.18000/- towards the fine as prayed by the petitioner for non-receiving of the articles in due time and litigation cost of Rs.10000/-.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in this case and filed written statement denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the said speed post letter being No. EW869733210IN delivered to the remitter on 29.10.2014. They admits that the delay of delivery was 15 days.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-
1) Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2) Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?
3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
Petitioner himself examined as P.W.-1 and he filed some documents which are marked Exts. 1, 2,2(i), 2(ii), 2(iii), 3, 4,5,6 and 7. Ext.1 is Original Copy of Postal Receipt, Ext.2 Registered Envelope in the name of addressee Faisal Nawaz sent by Speed Post on 15.10.2014 consisting Ext. 2(i) Original Copy of Cheque of Rs. 135000/- bearing No. 000363, Ext. 2(ii) Two Nos. of Original Reservation Ticket, Ext.-2(iii) Return Ticket and Railway School Pass / Journey Return Memo No. 13414 dtd. 20.10.2014, Ext.-3, Receipt copy of complaint to the Supdt. Ext.-4, Photocopy of Postal Receipt, Ext.-5 Copy of Lawyer’s Letter dtd. 18.10.2014. Ext-6 Original Copy of Acknowledgement Due,
Ext.-7 Letter of Superintendent RMS, Siliguri Divn.
The petitioner Ahmed deposed before the Forum as P.W.1 and stated in his evidence that his two sons, the eldest Dinesh Jawan Nawaz, aged about 18 years and the youngest Faishal Nawaz aged about 16 years residing at Sonpath, Hariyana for their studies. The youngest is a student of class X1 of DPS New Delhi School and the eldest is a student of B.Tech and the both the sons are residing in a same mess at Sonpath, Hariyana.
He further stated in his evidence that he purchased two tickets from Malda Railway Station for their two sons on 15.10.2014 and also sent one A/c Payee Cheque of Bank of India amounting of Rs.135000/- in favour of Delhi Public School, Sonpath as a tuition fees of his youngest son i.e. the document marked Ext.- 2(I) and 2(II) and 2(III). He sent all these valuable documents by speed post on the 15.10.2014 in a sealed envelope at 16-05 hr. from Malda P.O. But the said speed post articles letter is not received to the addressee till 20.10.2014. The date of journey was fixed on 20.10.2014 and the submission of tuition fees also fixed on 20.10.2014 but due to non-arrival of the said articles or due to non-delivery the name of the youngest son was struck but the son of the petitioner compelled to take Rs.1800/- as a fine to the DPS School Authority. Both the son of the petitioner went to the RMS of New Delhi for taking information about the article but in vain. Thereafter, both the sons compelled to come Malda for collecting their money and thereafter, returned back and the Postal Department delivered the Registered Speed Post Letter on 29.10.2014.
The petitioner also stated in the evidence that on 28.10.2014 he sent a letter stating all these facts to the Supdt. R.M.S S.G. Divn. Siliguri by registered post i.e. Ext.-4 but the postal department did not take any step and did not give any relief so he sent notice through his Lawyer on 18.11.2014 and thereafter, the Postal Authority sent letter admitting the delay for delivery of the letter of the petitioner aggrieved to pay compensation.
This witness is cross-examined by the defense and we are getting from the evidence that he did not able to prove for paying of cost of Rs. 1800/-. On the other hand we are getting that the cheque i.e. the Cheque of Rs.135000/- payable to Delhi Public School was delivered to the son of the petitioner on 29.10.2014 and the cheque was issued on 15.10.2014. Ld. advocate for the O.P. draw our attention stating the said envelope was not insured and it bears the bank note and which is compulsory to insure as per the Chapter III of the postal manual “Sec.184 of Indian Postal Act” in which insurance is compulsory.
It is true that the said speed post envelope did not deliver within 74 hours on and from 15.10.2014 but at the same time it is true that the speed post letter of the petitioner was delivered on 29.10.2014 to the remitter and prior to that i.e. on 28th the petitioner sent letter claiming compensation to the Supdt. RMS, Siliguri i.e. Ext.-4.
This Forum heard the Ld.Advocate for the petitioner as well as the Ld. Advocates for O.Ps in length, while the Ld.Advocate for the O.P. submitted that as per the Sec.6 of the Indian Postal Act “Exemptions from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage: The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, 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 as hereinafter provided 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 of default.”
Ld. advocate for the petitioner cited one ruling of NCDRC, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 127 of 2012 along with IA No. 2 of 2013 (Condonation of Delay). We have gone through the ruling. The main point of this case is u/s 21b of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “ jurisdiction of the National Commission i.e. the “revisional powers of the National Commission” are derived from the above section of the act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then may be set aside. In this case both the Court below came to a concurrent facts findings of the fact and that is why this ruling has no manner of application on that point.
It is true, that the letter is not served in spite of giving excess fees but the Central Government specifically states by willful act or default in Sec. 6. The speed post letter was delivered and it is not established in this record that the petitioner’s son spent money for their journey. We are getting from the evidence that the petitioner did not insure the said valuable bank notes and the tickets.The petitioner is an employee of the Railway Department and he purchased the ticket from Malda for his two sons as railway pass. Ld.advocate for the O.P. tried to draw our attention that the petitioner himself is a wrong doer and he did not insure the said letter though it contents the bank note i.e. the cheque. Ld.advocate for the O.P. also submitted that the petitioner when the science is so developed he did not send the message of purchasing tickets by Email to the Mobile or the Laptop of his sons those who are going to be educated in the modern science and technology. In spite of taking that advantage he was sending the ticket and the cheque through speed post where the date of journey was on 20th October,2014 and the ticket was purchased on 15th of that instant at 15-06 hrs.
Now we have to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. The postal department admits the delay for delivery and the railway ticket i.e. the pass and the cheque which was delivered to his youngest son. Considering all these aspects and as per the G.O. No. 43-4787-BDD of the Indian Postal Department we allow the petition in part for the delay in service and by this delaying delivery the petitioner has no loss and he is entitled to get maximum of Rs.1000/- for delay in delivery of the letter.
In the result, the consumer claim case succeeds in part.
Court fees, paid on the petition, is correct.
Hence, ordered
that the Consumer Case No. 80 /2014 be and the same is hereby allowed in part on contest with cost. The petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment due to delay in delivery of the letter and cost of litigation. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the above amount to the petitioner jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of the order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 7% p.a. till realization and the petitioner is at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
