District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri P. K. Chakraborty - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 85/2013
Sri Jyotirmoy Khan Bhaduri
S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Khan Bhaduri
Nelson Mendala Sarani, Anil Roy Lane,
P.O. & P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Head Post Master,
Balurghat Head Post Office,
PO & PS: Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat
Having Office at Narayanpur
Near Balurghat Municipal Bus Stand
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party / Parties
For complainant ………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick, Ld. Adv.
For OPs ………… - Shri Achintya Kumar Das, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 02.12.2013
Date of Disposal : 18.07.2014
Judgment & Order dt. 18.07.2014
In short, case of the complainant / petitioner is that for his better treatment he sent his original previous treatment prescription of Doctor R.S. Joshi along with some medical test reports in original and previous patient identity card to his brother Swarajit Ch. Khan, who is the permanent resident of 53 Nirala Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. PO: Mukundupur, Kolkata-700 099 through speed post letter vide receipt No. EW854200024IN dt. 20.7.2012, which was posted from the office of OP No.1 (Head Postmaster), Head Post Office, Balurghat Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur. Subsequently, he came to know from his brother Swarajit Ch. Khan that he did not receive the said letter, which was sent through speed post on 20.7.2012. On enquiry he came to know from the office of the OP No. 1 that the envelope along with the articles was delivered to another person. Then on 1.8.2012 he filed an application to the OP No. 1 requesting him to deliver the said article to the proper addressee after tracing out the same. In reply to his said application OP No. 1 informed him by a letter dt. 9.10.2012 that the letter, which was posted on 20.7.2012, was delivered from the post office of Haltu, Kolkata not having jurisdiction to the address to which it was sent. Accordingly, he again submitted an application on 10.10.2012 before the OP No. 1 to take necessary steps for proper delivery of the said letter containing some original documents. OP No. 1 again through his letter dt. 13.10.2012 informed him that the matter has been taken up with the SSPOS South Kolkata Division and the Postal Superintendent, Dakshin Dinajpur (OP No. 2). It is the further case of the complainant that he again filed an application on 24.5.2013 before the OP No. 1 to return back the articles sent by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application, but no effect at all. Thereafter, he visited the office of the OPs for several times requesting them to search out the letter containing the articles as mentioned above, but they failed to do the same. According to the complainant, there is / was gross negligence / deficiency in rendering service on behalf of the OPs. Hence, he has filed the petition of complaint against the OPs directing them to trace out the letter, which was sent on 20.7.2012 from the office of the OP No. 1 through speed post, in default, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of the said articles with a further prayer to give direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to him as compensation for mental pain and agony.
Both the OPs have contested the present case filing a written statement inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint. It is admitted by the OPs that the complainant booked a speed post letter bearing No. EW854200024IN addressed to Sri Swarajit Ch. Khan, 53 Nirala Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. PO: Mukundupur, Kolkata-700 099 from Balurghat Head Post Office on 20.7.2012. It is the main contention of the OPs (so far it can be gathered from their written statement) that the authority of Balurghat Head Post Office despatched the said letter as per postal procedure. Subsequently, they came to know from the complainant that the said letter/ article was not delivered to the addressee. On the basis of the application submitted on behalf of the complainant the matter was enquired. On enquiry it was revealed that the said letter No. EW854200024IN dt. 20.7.2012 was delivered to one Keka Sur from Haltu Sub-Post Office, Kolkata-900 078. Authority of the post office duly informed the complainant that the letter was inadvertently delivered to wrong addressee instead of proper / actual addressee. Subsequently, the authority of Balurghat Head Post Office (OPW-1) made several correspondence with the Sub Postmaster, Haltu sub-post office as well as senior Superintendent of South Kolkata Division for delivery of the said speed post letter to the actual addressee. According to the OPs, it is necessary to add sub-post master, Haltu Post Office and, the concerned higher authority as OPs to the present case to solve the matter. There is / was no any negligence / deficiency in rendering service on their behalf as the authority of Balurghat Head Post Office despatched the letter as per postal procedure. Present case is melafide one. So, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the present case.
From the materials on record we have come to the following finding.
FINDING WITH REASONS
Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written statement and the other materials on record. It is admitted position that the complainant / petitioner booked / sent a letter bearing No. EW854200024IN addressed to one Swarajit Ch. Khan, 53 Nirala Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. PO: Mukundupur, Kolkata-700 099 from Balurghat Head Post Office (OP No. 1) on 20.7.2012 through speed post. According to the complainant, he sent his original previous treatment prescription of Doctor R.S. Joshi along with some medical test reports in original and previous patient identity card to his brother Swarajit Ch. Khan through the said speed post letter. It is further admitted position that the said letter was not delivered to the actual addressee, but the same was delivered to one Keka Sur on 24.7.2012 from Haltu sub-post office, Kolkata – 900 078. It is the main contention of the complainant (so far it can be gathered from the petition of complaint) that in spite of his several correspondence with the OPs, they failed to deliver the letter in question to the actual addressee and they also failed to return back the same to him (complainant). Due to such negligent activities on the part of OPs he had suffered mental pain and agony. On the other hand, OPs did not support the above contention of the complainant. According to them, the authority of the Head post office Balurghat, despatched the letter as per postal procedure and they made several correspondence with the sub Postmaster Haltu, sub-post office as well as with the senior Superintendent South Kolkata Division for delivery of the said speed post letter to the actual addressee. So, there is / was no any laches or negligence from their side.
Now, we will consider as to whether there is / was any negligence or deficiency in rendering service on behalf of the present OPs or not. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant submitted before us that no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the postal department as to why the speed post letter sent by the complainant was delivered to one Keka Sur from Haltu post office, Kolkata- 900087 instead of actual addressee Swarajit Ch. Khan. So, the postal department committed misdelivery willfully. According to the Ld. Counsel, the OPs are not entitled to get the benefits of Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as it is / was a case of misdelivery committed willfully. Ld. Counsel further submitted before this Forum that non-delivery of speed post letter to the actual addressee is an act of negligence / deficiency in rendering service also. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel referred to a large number of decisions reported in 2009 (2) CPR at page-175, 2010 (2) CPR at page-294, 2010 (3) CPR at page-266 and 2009 (3) CPR at page-46 (NC).
We have carefully perused the said decisions, which clearly support the above contention of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs did not support the above contention of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant. According to him, there is / was no any laches or negligence on behalf of OPs as authority of Balurghat Head Post Office, from where the speed post letter was sent on 20.7.2012, despatched the said letter to Malda Post Office as per postal procedure. Subsequently, Kolkata RMS received the said letter on 21.7.2012 from Malda. Inadvertently, Kolkata RMS despatched the letter to Haltu sub-post office on 22.7.2012. The said letter was received by Haltu sub-post office on 23.7.2012. Ultimately, the letter was delivered from Haltu sub post office on 24.7.2012. In support of his above contention Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the xerox-copy of track result for the speed post letter No. EW854200024IN. Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the xerox-copy of rules and regulations of postal department at pages 3, 12 and 25. We have carefully perused the same. In our considered view the rules and regulations of the postal department as mentioned above will not help the OPs to support their contention. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OPs further submitted before us that instant case must fail against the OPs as there is / was no any laches on their behalf. If there is any laches, the same is / was from the side of Postmaster, Haltu sub-post office as well as the higher authority of the said post office. In reply Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant submitted before us that the OPs cannot escape from their liabilities as letter in question was sent from Balurghat Head Post Office and the same was not delivered to the actual addressee.
According to him, case lies for non-delivery / misdelivery of speed post letter against the postal employee of the post office, from where said letter is / was booked / sent. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the decisions as mentioned above. It is held by Their Lordships in the decision reported in 2009 (2) CPR at page-175 that where a postal letter sent by speed post was delivered to person other than the one named in address and there was no explanation why it was not delivered to the addressee himself, it would be a case of misdelivery committed willfully and Sec.6 of Indian Post Office Act will not provide protection to Postal Department. It is held by Their Lordships in the decision reported in 2010 (2) CPR at page-294 that Indian Post Office Act, 1981 is an Archaic Law and non-delivery of speed post on correct address is an act of negligence. Their Lordships held in the decision reported in 2010 (3) CPR at page - 266 that non-delivery / delayed delivery of posts constitute deficiency in service. With regard to the above decisions it is can safely be said that case will lie for non-delivery / misdelivery of speed post letter on correct address against the postal employee of the post office from where said letter is / was sent / booked.
In the instant case no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the OPs as to why the letter in question was delivered to one Keka Sur from Haltu sub post office instead of actual addressee Swarajit Ch. Khan.
Considering all these aspects as well as with regard to the decisions as referred on behalf of the complainant we are inclined to hold that non-delivery of the speed post letter sent by the complainant to his brother Swarajit Ch. Khan clearly constitutes a willful act of deficiency on the part of the OPs.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we opine that it would meet the ends of justice, if we award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in favour of the complainant.
We give liberty to the postal department to conduct an enquiry and if deem fit, to recover the amount of compensation as awarded y this Forum from the delinquent employee.
In the premises, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs, but in the circumstances without any cost.
Both the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation to the complainant- Jyotirmoy Khan Bhaduri by issuing an account payee cheque in his name within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, out of which the complainant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred) only in the “ State Consumer Welfare Fund ” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the cheque.
Direction is also given to the OPs to deposit the said cheque to this Forum within the abovementioned period.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
(P. K. Chakraborty)
President
I concur,
(S. Saha)
Member
