Dated of this 23rd day of December 2009

Present:

Sri.K.M.Thammaiah, President

Sri.D.Shivamahadevaiah Member

Smt.Girija Lady Member

Between:

1. Sri.K.R.Prakash s/o. K.C.Rudregowda,

Aged about 30 years, advocate,

C/o. Rangappa, Harsha Mahal

Building, 5th cross, S.I.T,

Tumkur-572 103 Complainants

2. Sri.G.Sreepathi,

S/o. Late H.Ganapathi Pandith,

Aged about 47 years, advocate

R/o Sri Ramashraya, 4th Main Road,

Shivamookambika nagar,

Upparahalli, Tumkur-572 102

(By advocate Sri.G.Sreepathi)

AND

1. The Superintendent of Post offices,

Office of the Superintendent of,

Post offices, Gandhinagara,

Tumkur-572 101, Opposite Parties

2. Post Master, Head post office,

Tumkur-572 101

(By advocate Sri.H.L.Krishna Murthy)
ORDER

HH

This is a complaint field under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act of short)

2. Through this complaint, the complainants pray for an award and order against the Opposite parties (the OPs for short) to pay Rs.10,000/-towards damages and compensation for service deficiency and also for mental agony alongwith the cost of the mobile set at Rs.3,050/-.



3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus:

It is their case that, the OPs are having their main office at Gandhinagar, Tumkur and Head post office at Market circle. They are central government offices.



4. It is further contended that, On 16-7-2008 the 1st complainant had purchased a Nokia Mobile set vide Model No.NOKIA-2600 from M/s. Manu Tele-shoppe, Tumkur vide receipt No.13169 for a sum Rs.3050/-.



5. It is further contended that, after purchase of the same, it was in good condition for two months and from Sept.2008 onwards problems started in the said mobile set. He had handed over the mobile set to the seller during the first week of Oct.2008 as it was not working properly and at the same time, they have directed him to contact Nokia care centre at Tumkur. As per their advice, he had contacted them and they have taken the mobile set for repair and told that there was a problem in software of the mobile set. It is further contended that, even after the repair, the same problem continued after 25 days and therefore on 6-11-2008 he had taken the mobile set to the care centre and they informed him that, there was a problem in hardware of the mobile set. Being fed up with the deficiency of service and also causing mental agony, he intended to sue them.



6. It is further contended that, the 1st complainant gave all the bills etc. to the 2nd complainant and he being an advocate sent legal notice to M/s. care manager, M/s. Nokia India P. Ltd, Gurgoan, The manger, Slans Nokia Care centre, Tumkur and the proprietor and M/s. Manu Teleshoppe, Tumkur by R.L.A.D on 11-11-2008. Out of the said R.L.A.D except R.L.A.D sent to the Gurgoan through R.L.A.D A No.3925 dated 11-11-2008, the 2nd complainant was in receipt of other 2 acknowledgements.



7. It is further contended that, the 2nd complainant waited for the receipt of said acknowledgement from Gurgoan and in that regard, he had orally enquired several times with the 1st and 2nd OP. He gave a complaint in writing on 24-8-2009 and in their letter dated 26-8-2009 they have taken time to intimate the same after verification. But, till the date, they have not given any intimation or status of that notice. It is alleged that, on account of non-receipt of the acknowledgement, the 2nd complainant could not file the complaint. Hence both the complainants have put into inconvience on account of the deficiency of service of the OPs. It is alleged that, though the OPs have collected extract charges of Rs..5/- for delivery of acknowledgement due the OPs have not returned the acknowledgement nor intimated the status of the notice.. Though the 2nd complainant served a notice to the 1st OP in this regard on 24-8-2009, but till date, they have not cared to give any information regarding the status nor cared to give proper reply in the said matter. Hence this complaint.



8. The OPs who have been notified of the complaint entered appearance through their counsel and resisted the same by filing their objections.



9. The gist of the objections is as follows:

In the objection filed by the OPs, it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that, they are not aware of the averments made in Para no.3 and 4 of the complaint.



10. These OPs while emphatically denying the complaint averments as false and untenable interalia pleaded that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these OPs and have never neglected their duties and at no point of time there was either any negligence or any deficiency in serving their customers.

11. It is further submitted that, a complaint dated 24-8-2009 regarding 11-11-2008 notice was acknowledged on the same day. The complainant was informed of the RL No.8631 dated 3-8-2009 as being delivered to the addressee on 8-8-2009. It was confirmed that, the article was delivered on 17-11-2008 and was informed to the complainant on 5-10-2009. Owing to the failure of the electronic media this OP was to do it manually.


12. It is contended that, as per section 81 of the post office guide part-I, the complaint of this nature should be preferred within 6 months from the date of incident. For transmission and delivery of acknowledgements to the senders no records are maintained. If the complainant is not in receipt of acknowledgement regarding the said registered letter, he should have lodged the complaint well in time i.e. within 6 months from the date of booking of the articles. The complaint dated 24-8-2009 in respect of Tumkur HO RL No.3925 dated 11-11-2008 was time barred one, but, still taken into consideration only with a mind towards public service.



13. It is further submitted that, the post offices handles lakhs of registered letters daily including registered/speed post letters. The said registered letter booked on 11-11-2008 was delivered to Gurgaon (Haryana) on 17-11-2008. The final reply to the complainant on the complaint dated 24-8-2009 was made on 5-10-2009. The delay in giving reply to the complaint is attributable to the complainant itself for preferring a delayed complaint. There is no service deficiency in this regard. No malafide/fraudulent intension or willful act or default also can be attributed on the part of the postal employees concerned. The complainants are unnecessarily trying to link the problems of their mobile set to this department. It is humbly submitted that, there is no reason to the complainants to claim any speculative and baseless compensation in this regard from this department. Accordingly, the OPs pray for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.



14. In support of the case of the parties, the complainants and OPs have filed their affidavits. The documents produced by the complainant and the OPs came to be marked as Ex.P-1 to 4 and Ex.R-1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also examined the materials available on records.

15. The questions that arise for our considerations are:

1. Is there any deficiency of service by the OPs?

2. Are the complainants entitled for the relief as claimed by them?



16. Our findings on the above questions are here under:

Point No.: Yes

Point No.: As per order

REASONS

17. At the very outset, we must point out that, in so far as sending the notice through RLAD to M/s Care Manager, M/s. Nokia India P. Ltd, Gurgoan, vide RLAD No.3025 dated 11-11-2008 is concerned, there is no dispute. It is the allegation of the complainants that, the legal notice sent by the 1st complainant through his advocate who is 2nd complainant in this case, to the said M/s.Care Manager and M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd no information has been given to him by the OPs. It is the contention of the OPs that, the said notice was delivered to the addressee on 17-11-2008 and it was informed to the complainant on 5-10-2009. Thus, it is maintained that, there is no deficiency of service. It is also contended that, the complaint lodged by the complainant was though belated still it was taken to consideration only with a view to serve the public.



18. It is necessary note that, when the OPs have entertained the time barred complaint of the complainants, now, it is not open for them to content that, the complaint of the complainants is stand barred. The OPs by their conduct are estopped from raising such plea.



19. A careful perusal of the documents more particularly at Ex-P-3, it is seen that, the OPs vide their letter dated 24-8-2008 had informed that, they were enquiring into the complaint of non-receipt of acknowledgement/proof of delivery of registered letters with acknowledgement sent vide transaction No.3925 dtd.11-11-2008 of Tumkur head office. Thereafter, the Sub Post Master, Gurgaon vide his letter dated nil addressed to the Superintended of office, Tumkur Division at Ex.R-1 had informed that, the said letter was delivered to the addressee on 17-11-2008. The said letter reads as thus:





“Sub Post Master,

DLQE, Gurgaon

7222022



The Supdt. of Post officer,

Tumkur Dv., Tumkur-572102



Regs

No.327/S.Bills dt at DLF 4-11-08

Sub: D/o. RL No.3425 dt.11-11-08 of Tumkur HO

-

Ref: Your office S.Bills No.CCC/572000-4402 dtd. 14-9-09

-

It is intimated that, as per office records the above said RL has been delivered to the addressee on 17-11-08. The S.Bill as enclosure and also enclosed.

DA/an above Sd/-

Sub Post Mater,

DL & QE, Gurgaon

1222022”.

20. From the materials placed on records nothing is seen that, the said intimation was given to the complainant by the OPs. The OPs have not produced any acceptable evidence or a scrap of paper to establish that, they had given intimation of the status of RLAD which they received from the Post Master, Gurgaon to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service. The conduct of the OPs in not intimating the status of the RLAD sent to the addressee to the complainants in our view amounts to deficiency in service.


21. Though the complainants have claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of deficiency of service and mental agony and also cost of the mobile set at Rs.3050/-. We are of the opinion that, it is on the higher side. It is relevant to note that, the OPs having failed to intimate the delivery of the letter sent to M/S. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, has not only committed deficiency in service but also caused and the obstacle to the complainant to get the Nokia set replaced within the warranty period for its defects. Thus, the complainant has been virtually prevented from taking recourse of law against Nokia Company. Thus, having regard to the circumstance of the case, we hold that, if a sum of Rs.3,050/- is awarded as compensation for deficiency in service it would meet the ends of the justice.

22. As far as the 2nd complainant is concerned, he is an advocate who acted on behalf of his client (the 1st complainant). Therefore, he has no separate cause of action against the OPs. Thus, the claim of 2nd complainant is rejected.

23. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part with cost of Rs.250/- directing the OPs No. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3050/- as compensation to the 1st complainant within 8 weeks from the date of this order failing which, they are liable to interest on the said sum at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint. It is ordered that, the OPs No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to make good of the aforesaid sums to the 1st complainant. The claim of the 2nd complainant is rejected.
Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day December 2009.