BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 15th day of December 2023.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.197/2019
Complainant
Anilkumar R., S/o.Raveendran, Geetha Nivas (TC 10/1871/1), Oruvathilkonam, Mannanthala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 015
Vs.
Opposite party
The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
The complainant states that a thapal was booked from Nalanjira Post Office by way of speed post on 27.10.2018 as per booking No.EL093287017IN. The complainant also states that it was assured by the opposite party that the thapal shall be delivered on 28.10.2018. The article has not been delivered on 28.10.2018 and on enquiry at District Post Office Ernakulam it was learned that the article has not been delivered from Thiruvananthapuram. But on enquiry through relatives at Thiruvananthapuram it was learned that it was sent from Thiruvananthpuram on 27.10.2018 itself. Normally, the postal article delivered shall be reached within 3 days. The complainant on presumption that it was blocked somewhere and enquired to the authorities and finally on 02.11.2018 the article has been received by the complainant. The complainant states that he had relied on the opposite party but they have not acted with response and duty consciousness and therefore, the complainant had undergone severe mental agony and hardships. The officers of the opposite party at Ernakulam stated that they have received the thapal article only on 01.11.2018 and had delivered it on 02.11.2018 and stated that these are the routine things happened and thereby the complainant had undergone great difficulties and hardships and therefore he approached the Commission claiming for Rs.30,000/- as compensation with interest among other reliefs.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version and filed additional version.
3) Version of the opposite party
In the version the opposite party contended that the argument of the complainant regarding oral confirmation to the complainant, who is the addressee of the speed post article in question from the Department that delivery will be effected on 28.10.2018 is not admitted. 28.10.2018 being a Sunday, delivery cannot be effected from postal Department, which is clearly known to all. Hence it is clear that the complainant had furnished a misleading statement. It is further submitted that a per the Citizens’ Charter of Department of Posts, the standard norms for delivery of speed post article within the same state is 1-4 days, excluding the day of posting of article, holidays & Sundays. In the instant case the article which was posted on 27.10.2018 was delivered to the addressee on 02.11.2018and it has suffered a delay of only one day as per the norms. It is submitted that the contention of the complainant regarding redressal of his complaint by the department in a sluggish manner is not true. The department has informed him in writing regarding the stage by stage status of processing his complaint. Copies of reports were issued to the complainant from the department at different stages.
Speed post National Sorting Hub (NSH Kochi for short) is only a sorting nodal office for sorting Speed Post articles for the entire Central Postal region covering districts Thrissur, Alappuzha, Mavelikkara, Kottayam, Idukki and Ernakulam. Delivery is not affected from National speed post sorting hub. On 31.10.2018, NSH Kochi has despatched the article to Ernkulam HO and the article was received at Ernakulam HO on 01.11.2018 at 11.14hrs. By the at time Postmen had moved out for delivery and hence delivery of the speed post article in question could be effected to the complainant only on 02.11.2018. The sender of the speed post article is at liberty to claim compensation for delay of 1 day as per the standard norms for delivery of speed post article within one month from date of booking of the article. It was already stated in the reply statement filed by the opposite party that the delay in delivery of 1 day was not wilful and that is occurred only due to technical issues, which were beyond the control of the opposite party.
In the instant case, it is squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in RP 3246/2019, in which the Honble NCDRC has granted complete exemption to Postal Department from any liability for delay in delivery which was not caused by any wilful or fraudulent act and thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the complainant.
The complainant has not adduced any solid evidence to establish the loss caused to him due to one day delay in delivery of the speed post article in question. Moreover, the sender has not submitted any claim for compensation. It is submitted at the risk of repetition that the delay caused is not wilful and that it occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. Hence abiding by the immunity provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4) Evidence
No evidence from the complainant is seen marked in the order sheet and Exbt.B1 and B2 are marked from the side of the opposite party.
Exbt.B1 goes to show (para 6 of guideline :- Exemption from liability for Loss, misdelivery and delay for damage.
Exbt.B2(series) is a copy of Gazette notification of GO1
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) Point No. (i)
On going through the complaint, version and evidences produced from either side it can be seen that the speed post article was booked on 27.10.2018 and the opposite party had promised that the same shall be delivered on the next day. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the next day ie. on 28.10.2018 which is holiday (Sunday) so delivery of the postal article cannot be expected on that day. The opposite party had stated that the article which was posted on 27.10.2018 was delivered to the addressee on 02.11.2018 and it has suffered a delay of only one day as per the norms. Based on norms delivery should have been effected within 4 days.
Here in the instant case, it is stated that Speed post National Sorting Hub (NSH Kochi for short) is only a sorting nodal office for sorting Speed Post articles for the entire Central Postal region covering districts Thrissur, Alappuzha, Mavelikkara, Kottayam, Idukki and Ernakulam. Delivery is not affected from National speed post sorting hub. On 31.10.2018, NSH Kochi has despatched the article to Ernkulam HO and the article was received at Ernakulam HO on 01.11.2018 at 11.14hrs. By the time Postmen had moved out for delivery and hence delivery of the speed post article in question cuold be effected to the complainant only on 02.11.2018. The sender of the speed post article is at liberty to claim compensation for delay of 1 day as per the standard norms for delivery of speed post article within one month from date of booking of the article. It was already stated in the reply statement filed by the opposite party that the delay in delivery of 1 day was not wilful and that is occurred only dye to technical issues, which were beyond the control of the opposite party.
Moreover, in the instant case, it is squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in RP 3246/2019, in which the Honble NCDRC has granted complete exemption to Postal Department from any liability for delay in delivery not caused by any wilful or fraudulent act and thereby dismissing the revision petition filed by the complainant. The Commission also have considers Exbt.B1 and B2 series produced from the side of the opposite party exempting delay under certain circumstances.
The Commission observed that even though there occurred a delay of one day from the prescribed norms in delivery by the opposite party it can be seen that the reason for such delay cannot be attributed at any particular point or person and the place of despatch, transmission, receiving centre, delivering point, transit or on the postal assistant went for delivery and also that the complainant had not proved with any evidences that the delay had occurred at any specific place, office, person and therefore, the Commission cannot fix the liability on any person or Havel and therefore point No. (i) is found against the complainant. Even under the above circumstances, this Commission alert the opposite party to be more vigilant and to ensure timely delivery of articles since many of the articles sent by the post offices are expected speedy and safe delivery and failure of which is nothing but deficiency of service.
7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found point No.(i) against the complainant, we do not have examined point Nos.(ii) and (iii).
Therefore, the following orders are issued.
The instant complaint is dismissed with no cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 15th day of December 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
