BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.15/2015

Dated this the 12^th day of September 2016

I. Rosario, son of Irudayasamy           

No.21, 10^th Cross Road, Periyar Nagar

Nellithope, Puducherry – 605 005.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. The Post Master                         

    Head Post Office      

    Puducherry – 605 001.   

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices

    Pondicherry Division                          

    No.490, M.G. Road

    Puducherry – 605 001.

                                                ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Dr. R. Ramalingam,  Advovate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES     :  Thiru R. Balasubramanian,  

                Advocate/ACGSC   

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A. ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with 12% of subsequent interest on the decreed amount from the date of realisation of the amount towards compensation and to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the Lok Adalat, Puducherry for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for costs.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant sent an application dated 25.11.2014 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Card vide Sl. No. A RT068147004IN to the Public Information Officer, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 032 and another application dated 01.11.2014 through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Card vide Sl. No. E RT68166799IN to the Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu State Transport Officer, Villupuram – 605 602.  As the deuly dated and signed acknowledgement cards were not available for the complainant, he lodged a written complaint on 13.12.2014 before the second Opposite Party.  As no reply was received till 02.01.2015 the complainant enquired regarding the written complaint dated 13.12.2014 and the authority concerned handed over two complaints Settlement-Reply letters stated that the letters were delivered to the address already.  But the authority concerned refused to furnish information regarding the acknowledgement cards.  Moreover, the complainant sent a registered letter with acknowledgement card on 24.12.2014 to the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Workshop), Villupuram.  The complainant received without the signature of the addressee and the date is also not mentioned and the display of the Office seal is not transparent and clear.  The complainant sent notice to the opposite parties on 12.01.2015, but the opposite parties did not send reply to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       The following are the averments narrated in the reply version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and adopted by Opposite Party No.1:

4. The Opposite parties admitted the booking of the Registered letters by the Complainant on 25.11.2014 and 01.12.2014.   It is submitted by the opposite parties that the said registered letters were duly delivered to the concerned addressees on 27.11.2014 and 02.12.2014 respectively and the same were informed to the complainant and hence, his complaint dated 13.12.2014 was closed on 02.01.2015.  It is also stated by the opposite parties that in respect to the complainant at para No.4 of the complaint that "the authority concerned refused to furnish information regarding acknowledgement cards".  The Opposite Party No.1 intimated the disposal of the Registered letters to the complainant vide settled replied  No. 605001-01141 & 605001-01142 dated 02.01.2015 and he was orally informed that the disposal of the acknowledgement cards were not traceable as they are dispatched as ordinary articles. It is stated by the opposite parties that they have not refused to furnish information regarding the acknowledgement cards. It is further stated that both the registered letters bearing Nos. RT 068147004 IN and RT 068166799 IN sent by the complainant on 25.11.2014 and 01.012.2014 were delivered to the addressee concerned without any delay on 27.11.2014 and 02.12.2014 respectively.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.

5. It is further stated that the complainant preferred a complaint letter dated 06.01.2015 addressed to Opposite Party No.2 alleging receipt of acknowledgement card without the signature of the addressee and unclear impression of addressee office seal in respect of Registered letter No RT 085039764 In booked at Pondicherry Head Office  on 24.12.2014 addressed to the General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram sent by him. The complainant further alleged that the delivery details were also not updated in the India post website.  It is stated by the opposite parties that the registered letter No. RT085039764 In dated 24.12.2014 booked at Pondicherry HO sent by the complainant addressed to the General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram workshop, Villupuram  was delivered to the addressee on 26.12.2014 without any delay though the delivery post office was noted as Villupuram 605 602 but the actual delivery post office kandamanadi SO 605 401. Due to receipt of heavy number of registered letters, the date stamp affixed by the addressee is not clear in the acknowledgment card received by the complainant.  However, the acknowledgment card has been duly delivered to the complainant by the omission of clear date stamp impression and signatures of the addressee have been inadvertently not noticed.  But, the perusal of delivery slip will prove the same as there are 28 other registered letters to the addressee on 26.12.2014.

6. The other allegation of the complainant that there is no reply to his notice date 12.01.2015 is not true because the Opposite Party  No.2 has given reply to the complainant vide letter No. Pccc/ Misc/dlgs dated 21.01.2015 stating that the copies of delivery slips were called from the office of deliveries and will be supplied on its receipt.  Further stated that the cases were taken up with Sub Postmaster, Kandamandi So 605 401 on 09.01.2015 and 22.01.2015 and Sub postmaster, Guindy Industrial Estate SO 605 032 on 22.01.2015 and copies of delivery slips were revived at this office from sub Postmaster, Guindy Industrial Estate SO 600 032 on 27.04.2015 from the Sub Postmaster, Kandamanadi SO
605 401 on 09.02.25015. Further reply was sent to the complainant by the Opposite Party  No.2 vide letter No. Pccc/Misc/dlgs dated 09.02.2015 stating that the registered letter No. RT 068166799 IN dated 01.12.2014 & RT 085039764 UB dated 24.12.2014 addressed to General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram were delivered to the addressee on 02.12.2014 and 26.12.2014 respectively and the copy of Special delivery slip dated 26.12.2014 having the signature of the addressee was also enclosed. 

7. The Opposite Parties further stated that as per section 6 of Indian post office Act, 1898 , the government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or any 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 herein after provided and no officer of the Post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default and further under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, one cannot go beyond the Statutory Provisions and grant compensation more than what is statutorily fixed. A consumer forum is even bound by the terms of the contract howsoever oppressive these may be unless those terms are against the public policy, illegal or void.

8.  The section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. 1898 has been discussed in a detailed manner in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the Revision petition No. 2411 of 2006 and pronounced it order on 13.10.2010 in which it states that the Indian government is doing the postal duty as a service to the people.  The Government gives much more in service than it gets in revenue. That is the reason for enacting, the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, which gives absolute protection to the Government against any claim for damages on accounts of loss of postal articles except cases and to the extent to which it has been specially provided in the Act itself. As the Supreme Court has pointed out the postal office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee.   It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provision of the Indian Post Office Act and the Rules made there under.  As there is no willful / intentional action on the part of the postal officials, Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act protects and absolves from responsibility.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

          9. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C11 were marked.  On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, Exs.R1 to R9 were marked.

10.     Points for determination are:

          1. Whether the complainant is the Consumer?

          2. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the Opposite Parties?

          3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled for?

11.     Point No.1:

The complainant sent two registered letters with acknowledgement cards on 01.11.2014 and 25.11.2014 respectively, vide Ex.C1 postal Receipts to The Public Information Officer, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai and Tamil Nadu State Transport Officer, Villupuram through first opposite party.   Thus, the complainant is the beneficiary of the service to be rendered by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer of the Opposite Parties.      

12.     Point No.2:

          We have perused the entire records, the complaint, reply version, exhibits, evidence of PW1 and heard the arguments.  The complainant submitted he sent two registered letters with acknowledgement cards vide Ex.C1 to The Public Information Officer, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai and Tamil Nadu State Transport Officer, Villupuram through first opposite party.   The acknowledgement cards were not received by him.  Exs.C2 and C3 are the Detailed Truck Events  dated 25.11.2014 and 01.12.2014 respectively.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 13.12.2014 he lodged a complaint vide Ex.C4 to the second opposite party for non-receipt of acknowledgement cards.   For which, the opposite party informed that both the letter were delivered on 27.11.2014 and 02.12.2014 respectively vide Exs.C5 and C6.  It is also alleged by the complainant that he sent another registered letter on 24.12.2014 to the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram but, its acknowledgement card was received without signature of the addressee and the seal is also unclear.  In this regard, he lodged a complaint Ex.C7, the photocopy of the acknowledgement card is Ex.C8.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.01.2015 vide Ex.C9 to the second opposite party which was received by them and duly replied vide Ex.C10. 

13. On the otherhand, it is submitted by the opposite parties while admitting the sending of  two registered letters by the complainant, the opposite parties  denied that there is no deficiency in service on their part of sending the same to the addressee destination.  It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that as soon as they have received the complaint from the complainant,  the second Opposite Party took action and enquired with the delivery office who in turn informed that both the registered letters were duly delivered to the addressee concerned as per communication received vide Exs.R1 and R2.  Further submitted that the registered letter sent to General Manager, TNSTC, Kandamanadi was also delivered on 2.12.2014 to the addressee as per Ex.  R6.  It is alleged by the opposite parties that apart from furnishing the details of delivery of three registered letters, they have also given the copies of delivery slips vide Ex.R9 to the complainant as the acknowledgement cards could not be traced out.  Further alleged that the opposite parties were duly replied on 9.1.2015 vide Ex.R3.  Since there is no delay in delivering the registered letters to the addressee concerned, and the same were promptly delivered, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. 

          14. From the above facts and material, we ascertained that the complainant has sent two registered letters, one to the Public Information Officer, Guindy Industrial Estate, Chennai and another to Public Information Officer, Tamil Nadu State Transport Officer, Villupuram on 25.11.2014 and 01.11.2014.  Apart from the above two letters, the complainant also sent another registered letter to the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram.  The first two letters though delivered to the addressee concerned, acknowledgement cards were not received by the complainant.  For the third letter, the complainant received acknowledgement card, but it was not signed and the seal affixed are not visible.        On perusal of Exs.R1 to R9, this Forum found that the three letters sent by the complainant were duly delivered to the addressee on the very next working day.  Hence, it is clear that the Opposite Parties have delivered the above said three registered letters to the addressee.  Moreover, the letter dated 01.12.2014 contained wrong pin code number, but the opposite parties have promptly delivered to the concerned addressee without returning the same.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant wrongly typed the date of letter addressed to Public Information Officer, Guindy, Industrial Estate, Chennai as 01.11.2014, but it was dated 01.12.2014.  

          15. With regard to the allegation of the complainant that the acknowledgement card received for a letter dated 01.12.2014 contained only addressee seal, that too not legible.  In this regard, the opposite parties have given Ex.C3 Detailed Track Events for the delivery of the above letter RT068166799IN at Kandamanadi on 02.12.2014.  Hence, on the very next day itself, it was delivered to the addressee.  Though the complainant received the acknowledgement card with illegible seal, the Ex.C3 establish that the same was received by the addressee. 

16.  Hence, from the above, it could be seen that the complainant has come forward with this vexatious complaint with an ulterior motive to get illegal gain.   Further, the Consumer Protection Act had been enacted for the welfare of the Consumers.  The intention of the Act is not for the purpose of misuse of the provisions of the Act by so called Consumers or for harassment of the statutory body, like the opposite parties herein.  Hence, this Forum found that complainant has not established the act of the Opposite Parties has been caused deficiency in service.

          17. Further, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a judgment reported in "THE POST MASTER, IMPHAL AND OTHERS vs DR. JAMINI DEVI SAGOLBAND (Revision Petition No. 986 of 1996) held that

"…… no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of the postal article.  A postal employee may be made liable provided an action was brought against him and it was proved that he was guilty of fraud or willful act or default leading to the loss of the postal article or non-delivery thereof.  In the instant case, the complaint has been made against the Post Master and Director General of Postal Service.  There is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of any one of the respondent.  The complaint, therefore, must fail and be dismissed."

The above authority is squarely applicable to the present case on hand since there is no allegation of any fraud, or willful act of default on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The non-despatch of alleged parcel was made only by Hyderabad Postal Authorities.  They have only misplaced the same.  Hence,  the complainant has not established that the act of the Opposite Parties has caused deficiency in service or fraud or willful act or default leading to loss of article.

          18. Further, this Forum relied on the Authority of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 986/1996 and Revision Petition No. 2411/2006 and also relied on the recent Judgment rendered by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 535/2015 [INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, HEAD POST OFFICE VS AMITABH SRIVASTAVA – 2015 (2) CPR 308 (NC)], wherein the observation made as

          The Present case swirls around the question regarding the bar created by section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  The said section runs as under:

      "Sec. 6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.  The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason or 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 hereinafter provided; and no, officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default"

and also observed,

      "……Post office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of sender of postal article for reaching it to addressee – It is a branch of public service, providing postal services subject to provisions of Indian Post Office Act and rules made there under – Services rendered by Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability".

“The services rendered for the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. Establishing the Post Offices and running the postal service the Central Government performs a governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and the charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the State for the enjoyment of the facilities provided by the Postal Department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. The Post Office cannot be equated with a common carrier.”

Hence, the Opposite Parties are not liable for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

          19.  Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in Point No.2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed.  Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

Dated this the   12^th day of September  2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW1           12.11.2015           Rosario         

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS MARKED ON CONSENT:

( A. ASOKAN )

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER