By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. Complainant is aggrieved by the non-delivery of a registered letter:-
It is the say of complainant that the Registration Certificate (RC) of her vehicle was submitted before the State Transport Authority (STA), Trivandrum for renewal of permit. That this R.C. was send to her from S.T.A on 29-4-2008 by registered letter. When she did not receive this letter she made enquiries at the post office. She was informed that it was send back with the endorsement ’not known’. She then had to file another petition before S.T.A whereby the R.C. was again send to her by another registered letter and this was delivered to her on 06-6-2008 by the post man of Karakunnu post office. It is stated that first opposite party returned the first registered letter without delivering to her, when another letter which was send from S.T.A. to her in the very same address had been delivered properly. It is stated that due to the delay in receiving R.C. Book the vehicle which was used on rent by a call Centre at Chennai could not be plied from 05-5-2008 till 09-6-2008. That complainant thus suffered loss of Rs.875/- per day. Complainant alleges that the act of opposite party in returning the properly addressed letter with endorsement ’not known’ is negligence amounting to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for liquidated damages of Rs.31,500/- along with compensation and costs.
2. Third opposite party who is the Superintendent of post office, Manjeri division has filed version on behalf of himself and all other opposite parties. Denying the allegations, opposite party submits that complainant is using incorrect postal address which has led to non-delivery of postal articles. Opposite party admits that first opposite party who is the delivery agent at Trikkalangode post office delivered one ordinary letter addressed as “Ummukulsu, 420, Kollaparamban house, Trikkalangode, Wandoor”, to the Kollaparamban house available in his delivery beat. This was delivered for the reason that he did not know the names of all the members of the Kollaparamban house available in his beat. It was delivered being an ordinary letter addressed to a house within the limits of his delivery beat believing that Ummukulsu is an inmate. The registered letter (RL No.3571 of Trivandrum) was received at Trikkalangode post office on 02-5-2008 with the address same as in the ordinary letter. First opposite party approached the Kollaparamban house available in his beat for delivery of the letter. That inmates of the house informed first opposite party that there is no one in the house by name “Ummukulsu”. Hence the letter was returned by first opposite party with endorsement as ’not known’ and entrusted to second opposite party. That as per post office rules an article which could not be delivered for reason ’not known’ etc. has to be kept in deposit for seven days before it is returned to sender. Accordingly the article was returned on 09-5-2008. After returning the letter, Mr. Rafeeq the husband of complainant approached the post office and enquired about the registered letter. He informed about the exact location of the residence of complainant. As per this he was residing within the delivery area of Karakunnu post office. That first and second opposite parties promised to redirect all postal articles in future if received in Trikkalangode post office. Later a registered letter NO.3623 was received from S.T.A. Trivandrum on 04-6-2008 at Trikkalnagode post office and the same was immediately redirected to Karakunnu post office as instructed by husband of complainant. That this registered letter was thus delivered to complainant on 06-6-2008 from Karakunnu post office. It is submitted that complainant is still using the incorrect postal address. That complainant is residing in a rented house owned by Sri.Nelliparamban Aboo in Tachunni under the delivery area of Karakunnu post office. That the correct address of complainant therefore is “Ummukulsu Kollaparamban, D/o Alavi, Kollaparamban house, Tachunni, Karakunnu (PO), Karuvambram (via), Malappuram District Pin-676 123. That the alleged registered letter was returned only because of the lapses on the part of the complainant in mentioning the correct post office. The delay was no fraudulent or willful act or default on the part of any post office officials who handled the articles. As such this opposite parties claim immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. That there is no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.
3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A7 marked for him. Opposite party filed affidavit. No documents marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.
4. Points for consideration:-
(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.
(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.
5. Point (i):-
According to complainant she is residing within the limits of TRIKKALANGODE Post Office, Malappuram District, and states that her address is as under.
’Ummukulsu,
420, Kollaparamban House,
Trikkalangode (PO),
Wandoor,
Malappuram District’.
It her say that she submitted the R.C. Of her vehicle before S.T.A., Trivandrum for the purpose of renewing the permit. The address for communication furnished by her before the S.T.A. was as above. Though the R.C. was send to her from S.T.A. On 29-4-2008 by registered post she did not receive it. On enquiries with opposite parties she was informed that the registered letter was send back to S.T.A. with endorsement ’not known’. She alleges that the registered letter was properly and correctly addressed to her and the non-delivery of it stating reason as ’not known’ is sheer negligence amounting to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. To support her contention that the address used by her is correct and proper, complainant relied upon Ext.A1 which is a letter send by ordinary post from S.T.A. which was delivered to her in January, 2008. The address on Ext.A1 is the same as above.
6. The complaint is resisted by opposite party contending that complainant is using incorrect postal address. It is submitted that complainant is not residing within THRIKKLANGODE Post Office limit,but is residing within the delivery area of KARAKUNNU Post Office limit and that the use of the wrong post office in the address led to the non-delivery of letter. That therefore there is no deficiency in service. It was further submitted by opposite party that Ext.A1 letter though received in Trikkalangode Post Office was delivered to complainant by first opposite party being an ordinary letter. It is submitted by opposite party that when first opposite party approached the same house for delivery of the registered letter he was informed by the inmates that there is no one in the house name ’Ummukulsu’, and therefore the letter was returned as not known.
7. Complainant has consistently stated that she is residing within Trikkalangode Post Office limit. It is also to be noted that complainant has furnished this address before a government authority like S.T.A., for her future communications and for sending an important document like R.C. to her. This means complainant has been using this address for all her correspondence and has had no cause of complain until this incident. Further Ext.A1 letter send in this address was delivered to her properly by first opposite party and there was no occasion to redirect. Admittedly there is a house by name ’Kollaparamban house’ within the delivery area of Trikkalangode Post Office. Then the burden rests heavily upon opposite parties to prove that the ’Kollaparamban house’ within the delivery area of first opposite party is not that of complainant’s and that complainant is residing within delivery area of Karakunnu Post Office. Opposite party has not produced any evidence regarding the details of the limits of delivery area to prove their contention. Further though opposite party submits that complainant is not residing within Trikkalangode Post Office delivery area limit it is not supported by specific affirmation in the affidavit. The postman of Karakkunnu Post Office would have been the best witness to speak that complainant is residing within Karakkunnu Post Office. Opposite party has neither examined him nor filed any affidavit of such person. Therefore there is absolutely no reliable evidence adduced by opposite party to controvert the contention of complainant and to prove that she is residing within Karakunnu Post Office limit.
8. The main contention of opposite party as per the affidavit is that since complainant has admitted receiving Ext.A3, A4 and A5 it would prove that her address is within Karakunnu Post Office limit and not within Trikkalangode Post Office limit. This contention of opposite party that Ext.A3, A4 and A5 would show that complainant is residing within Karakunnu Post Office does not find favour with us. On examining the dates of these letters we find that all these three letters are seen send after the origin of the dispute. The alleged undelivered registered letter was send back on 09-5-2008. Thereafter complainant preferred Ext.A2 complaint on 22-05-2008 to third opposite party and fourth opposite party. Ext.A3 is the reply issued by third opposite party to this complaint. Ext.A4 is the reply issued by fourth opposite party to the same complaint. Ext.A5 which is the second registered letter send to complainant from S.T.A. has reached Trikkalangode post office on 04-6-2008. On Ext.A4 and A5 the address is seen altered in red ink by opposite party with endorsement to redirect in the altered address which is as follows:
“Ummukulsu,
W/o Rafeeq,
Kollaparamban house,
Thachunni,
Karakunnu (PO),
Karuvambram (via) 676 123.”
Interestingly on Ext.A3 which is the reply send by third opposite party there was no occasion to redirect since third opposite party has used the above address and not the address furnished by complainant in the complaint lodged before third opposite party. These documents would go to show that these letters were redirected through Karakunnu Post Office only as an attempt on the part of opposite parties to absolve them from the liability and to support their contention. Further though opposite parties contend that these letters were redirected as per instructions from the husband of complainant there is no documentary evidence to show that husband of complainant had given any such authorisation to redirect the letters to the complainant. First opposite party admits that there is a Kollaparamban house in his beat and that he delivered Ext.A1 letter to this Kollaparamban house within his delivery area. He now contends that the residents of that Kollaparamban house is different and that the Kollaparamban house in which complainant is residing is within the delivery beat of Korakunnu Post office. Then first opposite party is duty bound to produce necessary evidence as to the details of the inmates of the Kollaparamban house which he admits to be in his delivery area. No evidence is adduced by opposite party in this regard. These facts speak by themselves of the willful negligence on the part of first opposite party, returning the registered letter without delivering it to the complainant.
9. From the evidence and materials on record we are able to conclude that complainant is residing in the Kollaparamban house within Trikkalangode Post Office limits and the address used by her is correct and proper. Complainant has established a case in her favour. We hold that the act of opposite party in returning the registered letter addressed to the complainant without delivering to her is negligence. We are able to infer that the letters Ext.A4 and A5 were redirected to complainant by opposite parties playing hand in gloves together only to evade responsibility and with motive of creating evidence in support of their contention. We find opposite parties deficient in service.
10. Point (ii):-
Complainant claims Rs.31,500/- as liquidated damages which resulted due to the delay in receiving the Registration Certificate. She submits that the vehicle is used as taxi at Chennai and due to delay in receiving the R.C. the vehicle could not be plied from 05-5-2008 till 09-6-2008 and incurred loss of Rs.875/- per day during this period. Apart from the vague affirmation in the affidavit no evidence is adduced to prove that the vehicle is used as taxi at Chennai and that she was earning Rs.875/- per day by plying the vehicle. Even though it can be assumed that the negligent act of opposite party resulted in loss to complainant, the evidence adduced regarding quantum of loss is not sufficient to be acceptable. Hence this claim is only to be disallowed. But complainant is definitely to be compensated for the deficiency meted by her.
11. It was submitted by opposite party that Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act provides immunity from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of postal article. In the present case the postal article was neither lost, misdelivered, or delivered with delay or damaged. The postal article properly addressed was undelivered and returned to sender negligently by opposite party. When first opposite party has made endorsement as ’not known’ upon the registered letter without making proper enquiries and sufficient care and effort to effect delivery the act is nothing but willful act of negligence and default on the part of first opposite party. This Section does not enpower the postal department and it’s officers to do whatever they like with the postal article entrusted to them and then claim immunity from liability for loss, misdelivery etc. of that article. The section does not contain an absolute exemption or total indemnity. The protection under section 6 intends to benefit those who have committed bonafide mistake and is not intended to shield those who are guilty of dereliction of duty and callous indifference in performance of their function. For these reasons we do not think that Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 can be applied to absolve the opposite parties from their liability.
12. Complainant relied upon Ext.A6 and submitted that there are several complaints among the public regarding the delivery of postal articles at Trikkalangode Post Office. Ext.A6 is a complaint lodged to fourth opposite party by Secretary of Pothujana Vayanasala of Trikkalangode stating the grievances of the public due to the improper delivery of postal articles. In our view, for dealing such a situation like the present case the decision rendered by Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1993 CTJ 929 is most relevant which is reproduced as under:
“Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary Citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it”.
In the present case after the negligent non-delivery and return of the registered letter opposite parties have played hand in gloves to cover up their mistake, and thus have insisted the complainant to start using a new address by using Karakunnu Post Office. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, in our view, this is a fit case to award adequate compensation. Seldom do people come forward to voice such grievance fearing the time and expenses of burdensome litigation. Remedy in one such complaint would not only be redressal of grievance to the complainant but will also serve to improve the quality of service rendered by such governmental authorities. We therefore are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to complainant would serve to meet the ends of justice.
13. In the result we allow the complaint and order all opposite parties to jointly and severally pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) together with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2009.
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1 : Proceedings of the Secretary, STA., Kerala, Trivandrum.
Ext.A2 : Request dated, 22-5-2008 by complainant to 3rd opposite party.
Ext.A3 : Reply letter with cover dated, 30-6-2008 by 3rd opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A4(series) : Acknowledgement letter with cover from 3rd opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A5 : Registered postal cover to complainant
Ext.A6 (series) : Complaint dated, 28-12-2007 from Secretary, Pothujana Vayanasala & Grandhalayam to 4th opposite party.
Ext.A7 : Affidavit of complainant in Ext.A6 dated, 30-12-2008.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
Taken up in adalath today. Parties present. Amicably settled. Complainant endorsed that complaint not pressed. Complaint dismissed. No costs.
Dated this 28th day of February, 2011.
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
