DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PURULIA



CONSUMER COMLAINT No. 28 OF 2007



Date of filing: 19th September 2007

Date of Order: 24th March 2009



Complainant (s) Opposite Party (s)

1. Sri Shyamapada Maikap. 1. The Chief Post Master General,
2. Sri Rana Pratap Maikap, South Bengal Region,

Both are residents of: Jogayog Bhawan, Chittaranjan Avenue,

Vill. & P.O. Digha, Kolkata- 700 012.

Police Station: Neturia, 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

District: Purulia. Asansol Division, P.O. Asansol,

District: Burdwan.

3. The Post Master, Asansol Post Office,

P.O. Asansol, District; Burdwan.

4. The Post Master, Shastri NagarP.O.,

District: Meerut.

5. The Sub-Post Master,

L.L.R.M. College P.O.,

District: Meerut.

6. The Branch Manager,

U.B.I., Sarbari Branch,

P.O. Neturia, Dist: Purulia.

7.The Branch Manager,

U.B.I., Meerut Branch,

P.O. & Dist: Meerut-250 005.

8. The Controller of Examination of

Master of School of Management,

F-17, Shastri Nagar, Meerut-250 005.



Present: 1. Shri R.N. Sarkar, President.

2. Sri A. Sinha, Member.

3. Smt. S. Sengupta (Santra), Member.





For the Complainant(s) : Sri P. Roy, Adv.

For the O.P.No. 1,2&3 : Sri A. Banerjee, Adv.

For the O.P.No. 4 to 8 : None appeared



Order No. 20, dated 24.3.2009/C.C.No. 28 of 2007



The grievance of the complainants is that Rana Pratap Maikap, the complainant No.2 who is the son of complainant No.1 Shyamapada Maikap. Complainant No.2 applied for getting admission in MBA course to the Master School of Management, Meerut and after being successful in entrance examination held on 29.4.2007 he was selected for getting admission in the said course subject to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000=00 through demand draft (DD) towards admission charges by 30.5.2007. The complainant No.1 being the father of complainant No.2 sent a registered envelope containing DD No. 181920 (000027000) dated 14.5.2007 of Rs. 20,000=00 drawn on O.P.No.6 United Bank of India, Sarbari Branch, Purulia in the name of Master School of Management, Meerut through speed post from Asansol Post Office on 15.5.2007. The complainant No.1 also paid Rs. 56=00 towards draft commission to the O.P.No.6 and Rs. 25=00 towards speed post charges to O.P.No.1,2&3. Subsequently, the complainants came to know that the said registered letter containing DD was not delivered to the institution upto 30.5.2007. As a result of which the complainantNo.1 has lost opportunity to undergo course of MBA for a year and lost his career for a year which caused much mental shock and harassment. Despite advocate notice no information regarding fate of the said envelope containing the DD was received from the O.Ps. causing mental anxiety and harassment. Alleging mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1,2&3, the complainants claimed the DD amount, compensation and litigation cost against the O.Ps. by filing this complaint.



O.P.No.4 to 8 neither appeared nor filed their written versions. Only O.P.No. 1,2 &3 contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the complainant have got no locus standi to file the instant complaint and the case is not maintainable in law and facts. It is the case of the O.P.No.1,2&3 that the said speed post was booked from Asansol business office being article No. EW0503261518IN, dated 15.5.2007 for delivery to the In-charge of Admission, Master School of Management, F-17, Shastri Nagar, Meerut but that has not yet been delivered to the addressee. This has been confirmed through website enquiry from Meerut Customer Care Centre. Immediately thereafter such bill has been issued by Asansol Division to trace out the speed post article in question and complete inquiry is under process. The present case is premature one as the Departmental enquiry is under process. The speed post article was dispatched to Asansol RMS on the same day i.e. on 15.5.2007. Hence, there is no departmental negligence on the part of Asansol division. According to Indian Post Office Act & Rule the Department of Posts is not legally responsible for loss or damage in any article in case of transmission. These O.Ps. also denied mental agony and harassment of the complainants. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief as sought for. They prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.



Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:



(1) Whether there was any negligence and deficiency in rendering service to the complainants?

(2) Whether the explanation/reasons assigned by the answering O.Ps. is sufficient for non-delivery of the speed post article to the addressee?

(3) To what other relief are the complainants entitled to?



All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience as they are interlinked.



In order to bring home the case both the parties examined one witness each and the documents produced by the complainants are marked Exhibit “1” to “10” and the documents produced by the answering O.Ps. are marked Exhibit “A” to “E”.



Issue No. 1,2&3:



It is no longer in dispute that the complainants sent the registered envelope containing DD of Rs. 20,000=00 through speed post from Asansol Post Office on payment of charges. Therefore, the complainants hired services for consideration and when the service provided are found to suffer from deficiency in any respect can only file the complaint as consumer under C.P.Act. The complainants being the consumer under the Act can maintain the complaint.



The moot question for consideration is whether the explanation or reason assigned by the O.P.No.1,2&3 is sufficient for non-delivery of the speed post article to the addressee or not. It is admitted position that the envelope containing DD of Rs. 20,000=00 was registered at Asansol Post Office (O.P.No.3) on 15.5.2007 to the Management of Master School of Management, Meerut (vide Exbt. 3&4). Complainants also produced the original counter foil of receipt for preparing DD (Exbt. 1) and Xerox copy of DD (Exbt.2), original Admit Card (Exbt.5), correspondences (Exbt. 6,7&10), postal receipts (Exbt.8) and letter of Assistant Director of Postal Services, Kolkata dated 11.7.2007 (Exbt.9). O.P.No.1,2&3 also filed the letter dated 04.7.2007 (Exbt. A), details of speed post articles (Exbt. B), speed post mail list/year mail delivery bill (Exbt. C), search bill issued from Asansol Division (Exbt. D) and letter dated 05.7.2007 (Exbt. E).



From the documents produced by the parties and exhibited it is clearly indicate that the postal authority received the envelope containing the DD but the said envelope was not delivered to the addressee. Ld. Advocate appearing for the O.P.No.1,2&3 has strongly contended that there is no deficiency of service of the O.P.No.1,2&3 referring to the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and clause 10 with regard to liability under C.P.Act. Clause 10 provides we find that the “Central government shall not incur any contractual 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 provided in this Act or rules made thereunder, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason or any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by this willful act or default”. In terms of dated 22.01.1999 regarding payment of compensation/money back guarantee for delay or loss of articles relating to speed post and other premium products the compensation payable to the customer will be double the speed post charges or Rs. 1,000=00 whichever is less.



Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainants has canvassed before us that the evidence on record clearly proved lethargic and apathetic attempt on the part of the postal authority which tantamount to default and shortcoming on the part of the postal authority for non-delivery of the postal articles till today.



From the evidence of P.W.1 we find that the postal article was posted from Asansol Head Post Office through speed post. During cross-examination he stated that the postal article was not insured the consignment and no extra charge was paid to the Postal Department. He failed to say whether the DD was enclosed with other documents in the envelope of the speed post or not. He denied that no such DD was sent through speed post. O.P.W.1 deposed that all the speed post envelopes are sent by RMS. A.P.M. (Mail) who received the bags from concerned Post Office, sent the same to RMS after preparing a mail list of the bags and the Officer In-charge put his signature on the list. Proper receipt for handing over the bag containing the speed post articles issued by RMS of mail list to Overseer putting seal and signature. He admitted that Exbt. “B” does not contain the signature of receiving bag along with date stamp of the Officer of RMS. He has got no knowledge about the relevant speed post envelope till today. That evidence adduced by the parties clearly goes to show that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the postal authority regarding non-delivery of the same to the addressee. Mere sending the envelope by preparing mail list and handing over the same to RMS cannot be said sufficient to perform the duties. Whole responsibility lies upon the postal authority to establish that the postal article was delivered to the addressee within the time when the disputed envelope was posted at Asansol Post Office on 15.5.2007. The postal authority has failed to establish that the postal article was delivered to the addressee or the enquiry result of their letter dated 11.7.2007 (Exbt. 9) till the date of hearing argument. It is not the case of the O.Ps. that the postal article was lost or mis-delivered or damaged in course of transmission. As such Clause 10 provides for substitution of Section 6 of principal Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The evidence, as well as, documents produced by the parties we hold that the postal authority was negligent to deliver the postal article to the addressee and there was shortcoming and default on the part of the postal authority causing serious loss and mental agony of the complainants and the complainant No.2 lost his career due to latches and negligent act on the part of the postal authority. The complainants hired postal services provided by the Central government on payment of charges, not the service hired by the complainants from the postal authority was contract of personal service. The present complainants had no direct control and supervision over the official functioning of the postal authority and so the service hired by the complainant will come under the exclusionary part of the deficiency of service under the Act. considering all aspects we hold that loss suffered by the complainants constitutes negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1,2&3 and they are liable to pay compensation as no satisfactory explanation has been given for non-delivery of the postal article.



The next question that arises for consideration to the extend of loss suffered by the complainants. It is needless to mention here that the DD of Rs. 20,000=00 was sent to the Master School of Management, Meerut for getting admission in MBA after being selected in entrance examination held on 29.4.2007. Due to such non delivery of DD to the Master School of Management, Meerut the complainant No. 2 not only has failed to undergo the course of MBA but also lost his career for a year which caused much mental shock and harassment to the complainant No. 1 & 2. Till today there is no explanation as to the fate of the said envelope containing DD. By letter dt. 11.12.2008, UBI, Meerut Branch, U.P. intimated that the Bank Draft No. 181920 has not been encashed so far as per record available. It is the duty and responsibility of O.P. No. 1,2& 3 to see that the envelope was delivered to the addressee. Non-delivery of the envelope in absence of satisfactory explanation amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances we hold that the complainants suffered loss due to such willful act or the fault on the part of the postal authority. Since the draft in question has not been encashed till date and the draft amount is lying with UBI, Sarbari Branch, Purulia (O.P. No. 6), the complainant No. 2 is entitled to get refund of the amount from the O.P. No. 6.



Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainants claimed interest against O.P. No. 6. But O.P. No. 6 can not be said liable to pay the interest for no fault on its own.



After careful consideration and submission of both sides and materials on record we hold that complainants have been able to establish the case and they are entitled to get the refund of the Demand Draft amount from O.P. No. 6 and compensation from O.P. No. 1,2& 3.



In the result the complaint succeeds.



All the issues are disposed of accordingly.



Proper fees have been paid.



Accordingly, it is



O R D E R E D



That the Consumer Complainant Case 28 of 2007 is allowed on contest against O.P. No. 1, 2 & 3 and ex parte against O.P. No. 6 and dismissed against O.P. No. 4, 5, 6 and 7.



The O.P. No. 6, The Branch Manager, United Band of India, Sarbari Branch, District: Purulia is directed to re-issue the Demand Draft in question if so desired by the complainants or refund the Draft amount of Rs. 20,000=00 (Rs. Twenty Thousand) only to the complainants after obtaining bond/undertaking as per Banking Rules and Regulations.



The O.P. No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000=00 (Rs. Ten Thousand) only towards compensation for harassment and mental pain of the complainants and Rs. 1,000=00 (Rs. One Thousand) only towards litigation cost.



The O.P. No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 are directed to comply with the aforesaid order within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from this date till realization.



Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge.





Member Member President

Sri A.K.Sinha Smt. S.Sengupta Sri R.N.Sarkar

no senior citizen interest posting has been made at Baly Goswamipara Sub Postoffice from May 2008. SPM name is Hansraj Kahar.SubPost office teephone number is 2877-8277, the metter is serious. kindly - contact - POSTMASTER SALKIA HEAD POSTOFFICE ,PHONE 2675-7172

Dear Sir,
I will give you the identity of a personality in your department for whom I am sure you will not be proud of. I would first let you know about his work habits and then would like to through light on his character.
A postmaster on his chair and behaving with his customers in the most uncultured,uncivilised and rogue manner. He takes pleasure in harassing his customers for nothing, which is all the more painful since most of the customers are seniour citizens. On the pretext of being overburdened with work, he deliberately refuses to keep a stock of stamps and post cards due to which all such services like registered post and money orders are greatly affected.Who will compensate for this huge loss of revenue for the goverment? And what about customer satisfaction which has become such an important term in the service industry?
After the counter is closed, he keeps himself busy with alcohol which has become a routine affair. Smoking incessently during the working hours, he even misbehaves with the female staff using the fithiest of languages and gesturing in the most provocative ways(this information from reliable sources) .
He is Mr.DEBABRATA DEB of V.K.Nagar Post Office, M.A.M.C,Durgapur-713210.I dont expect that you will believe this anonymous letter.Kindly depute somebody in strict confidence and plaincloth. Ask him to inquire about this man from common men.You will get the true picture; dont depend on information by the agents; it may not beimpartial. Ultimately the reputation of your dept is at stake. I firmly believe that our overall social structure is strong enough to get rid of these cheap souls.
Hoping for a thorough impartial enquiry.
By a citizen of India who is aware of his rights and duties.