Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/284/2014

S.Swaminathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master, Mylapore Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

I.Jenkins William

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.07.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.284/2014

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

S. Swaminathan,

S/o. Late Mr. M. AR. S. AR. Swaminathan Chettiar,

No.3, Raghava Veera Avenue,

Poes Garden,

Chennai – 600 086.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                          ..Versus..

 

1. The Post Master,

Mylapore Head Post Office,

Kutchery Road,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. The Head Post Master,

Chennai Head Post Office,

St. Thomas Mount HO Premises,

Chennai – 600 016.

 

3. The Head Post Master,

Chennai Head Post Office,

Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

4. The Chief General Manager,

Head Post Office,

Dak Bhawan,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi.

 

5. The Deputy Director General (PG & QA),

Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg,

New Delhi – 110 116.

6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City South Division,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

7. The Manager,

Chennai SPCC,

St. Thomas Mount,

Chennai – 600 016.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                   :  M/s. I. Jenkins William

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 7  :  M/s. A. Kumar, ACGSC

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 7 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.3,800/- expended towards legal fee for Indian Government Mint, Mumbai and another sum of Rs.2,600/- expended by way of travel and communication Rs.5,000/- towards legal fees and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is an educated person coming out of a socially well placed family residing in the above said address for the past 40 years and having the hobby of collecting old, ancient, and rare coins of India as well as other countries from his friends, relatives and other legal sources.  The complainant submits that on 03.08.2012, he booked for supply of coins connoting the event of 1000 years of Brihadeeswarar Temple as per order No.8623 of Government Mint at Mumbai and sent a demand draft bearing No.069474 dated:03.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.52,185/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mumbai.  The complainant submits that the parcel supplied by the Government Mint at Mumbai was returned by the 1^st opposite party without making any attempt to contact the complainant.  The complainant submits that in the month of April 2013 after expiry of 6 months, the complainant contacted one Mr. Pankaj of coin booking section, Indian Government Mint, Mumbai and enquired about the status of order No.8623 in turn Mr. Pankaj informed the complainant that the Mint had already been despatched through parcel on 11.03.2013 itself and the 1^st opposite party had returned the parcel on 18.03.2013. 

2.     The complainant submits that after due discussion with the official of Indian Government Mint, Mumbai, the complainant again sent a Demand Draft bearing No.039279 for a sum of Rs.3,800/- dated:27.05.2013 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai along with a covering letter and requested the Indian Government Mint, Mumbai to resend the coins which were initially despatched on 11.03.2013 as per order No.8623.  The complainant submits that the Indian Government Mint, Mumbai once again, sent the parcel and on information the complainant tracked the parcel and received it on 07.06.2013  after the production of ID proof of passport.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party previously returned the parcel to the 2^nd opposite party with an endorsement that “addressee deceased” which caused great mental agony.  The complainant submits that on 08.06.2013, the 1^st opposite party had taken a handwritten letter and collected a copy of the passport of the complainant for verification. Immediately, the complainant sent a letter dated:13.07.2013 demanding refund of a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the loss suffered for no fault on the part of the complainant.  On 17.07.2013, the officials working under the 1^st opposite party office came to the complainant’s house and knocked the door and demanded the returned empty parcel cover in which, it was written ‘addressee deceased’ in order to create false evidence.  On 21.09.2013, the complainant issued a letter to the 4^th opposite party calling explanation for the reason noted as ‘addressee deceased’.  But there is no response.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:22.04.2014  and the 7^th opposite party sent a reply dated:24.05.2014.  Due rejoinder dated:11.06.2014 also sent by the complainant.   The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the   opposite parties 1 to 7 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 7 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 to 7 state that the complainant has not produced any document to prove the allegation of booking of coins with India Government Mint, Mumbai.    The opposite parties 1 to 7 state that the payment of a sum of Rs.3,800/- towards the despatch of the alleged parcel is of own willingness on the part of the complainant and not due to the act of the opposite parties 1 to 7.   The complainant has approached the 7^th opposite party on 07.06.2013 and made a written request to arrange to deliver his parcel No.EM885828313IN to his address, as the 1^st opposite party has returned the parcel to the 7^th opposite party without effecting delivery.  On the receipt of written request, the 7^th opposite party has immediately despatched the said parcel to the 1^st opposite party for effecting delivery and accordingly immediately delivery of the said parcel was done and the complainant has collected his parcel on 08.06.2013 without any protest from the 1^st opposite party and thus the above matter ended on 08.06.2013.  The opposite parties 1 to 7 state that the parcel was duly delivered after proper identification.  The opposite parties 1 to 7 state that the huge imaginary compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is claimed by the complainant without any basis.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 7.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B22 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 7.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,800/- expended towards legal fee for Indian Government mint, Mumbai and another sum of Rs.2,600/- expended by way of travel and communication and Rs.5,000/- towards legal fee as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in services, mental agony and harassment as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is an educated person coming out of a socially well placed family residing in the above said address for the past 40 years and having the hobby of collecting old, ancient, and rare coins of India as well as other countries from his friends, relatives and other legal sources.  Ex.B1 is the passport showing the address and other details regarding residence etc of the complainant.  Further the complainant contended that on 03.08.2012, he booked for supply of coins connoting the event of 1000 years of Brihadeeswarar Temple as per order No.8623 of Government Mint at Mumbai and sent a demand draft bearing No.069474 dated:03.08.2012 for a sum of Rs.52,185/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Mumbai is not denied.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the parcel supplied and despatched by the Government Mint at Mumbai was returned by the 1^st opposite party without making any attempt to contact the complainant.  Ex.A21 shows the date of despatch of the coins by the Government of Mint, Mumbai. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that in the month of April 2013 after expiry of 6 months, the complainant contacted one Mr. Pankaj of coin booking section, Indian Government Mint, Mumbai and enquired about the status of order No.8623 in turn Mr. Pankaj informed the complainant that the Mint had already despatched through parcel on 11.03.2013 itself and the 1^st opposite party had returned the parcel on 18.03.2013 proves the deficiency in service.  Further the complainant contended that after due discussion with the official of Indian Government Mint, Mumbai, the complainant again sent a Demand Draft bearing No.039279 for a sum of Rs.3,800/- dated:27.05.2013 as per Ex.A3 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai along with a covering letter and requested the Indian Government Mint, Mumbai to resend the coins which were initially dispatched on 11.03.2013 as per order No.8623.  Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 established the above said facts.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the Indian Government Mint, Mumbai once again, sent the parcel and on information the complainant tracked the parcel and received it on 07.06.2013  after the production of ID proof of passport.   Ex.A6, Ex.A7 & Ex.B2 speaks that facts.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party previously returned the parcel to the 2^nd opposite party with an endorsement that “addressee deceased” which caused great mental agony. 

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 08.06.2013, the 1^st opposite party had taken a handwritten letter and collected a copy of the passport of the complainant for verification as per Ex.A8 & Ex.A9. Immediately, the complainant sent a letter dated:13.07.2013 demanding refund of a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards the loss suffered for no fault on the part of the complainant.  Ex.A10, Ex.A11, Ex.A12 and Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 speaks the above said facts.  On 17.07.2013, the officials working under the 1^st opposite party office came to the complainant’s house and knocked the door and demanded the returned empty parcel cover in which, it was written ‘addressee deceased’ in order to create false evidence.  On 21.09.2013, the complainant issued a letter to the 4^th opposite party calling explanation for the reason noted as ‘addressee deceased’.  But there is no response.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:22.04.2014 as per Ex.A16 & Ex.A17 for which, the 7^th opposite party sent a reply dated:24.05.2014 as per Ex.A19.  Due rejoinder dated:11.06.2014 as per Ex.A20 also sent by the complainant.   Since the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the issue due to the negligence and deficiency in service the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming the return of the amount expended towards postal charges, communication and travel expenses  loss of work, legal expenses etc with a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.   But the complainant has not explained and proved the claim of such huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

9.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 7 contended that the complainant has not produced any document to prove the allegation of booking of coins with India Government Mint, Mumbai.  But on a careful perusal of entire records, the booking and despatch of coins, return of parcel etc are very clearly proved.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is that the payment of a sum of Rs.3,800/- towards the despatch of the alleged parcel is of own willingness on the part of the complainant and not due to the act of the opposite parties 1 to 7; is not acceptable because the complainant paid proper amount towards  purchase of coins from Indian Government Mint, Mumbai and the coins also duly despatched to the complainant’s address which was returned with an endorsement ‘addressee deceased’ resulting that the payment of Rs.3,800/- caused for resending the coins Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is that various claims raised by the complainant towards travelling expenses loss of employment etc without any proof is not acceptable.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is that the parcel was duly delivered after proper identification.  The allegation that the 1^st opposite party came to his house repeatedly and attempted to deliver some letters are imaginary.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 7 is that the huge imaginary compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the complainant without any basis is not acceptable.   

10.    The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 7 cited Section 6 of India Post Office Act which reads as follows:-

6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage:       

“The (Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay 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 wilful act or default”.

11.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party while delivering the parcel has not taken minimum care to identify the person for proper delivery and negligently returned the parcel with an endorsement as ‘addressee deceased’ proves the negligence and deficiency in service.  Hence the opposite parties 1 to 7 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 04.07.2014 to till the date of this order with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,800/- (Rupees Three thousand and eight hundred only) being expenses incurred towards re-despatch of the complaint said coins along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 04.07.2014 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 06.12.2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	27.05.2013	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to India Government Mint enclosing a fresh Demand Draft
Ex.A2	27.05.2013	Copy of counter foil for purchasing the fresh Demand Draft
Ex.A3	27.05.2013	Photo copy of the Demand Draft which was purchased from Indian Overseas Bank as fee for resending the parcel
Ex.A4	31.05.2013	Copy of Demand Draft  receipt voucher issued by India Government Mint, Mumbai
Ex.A5	31.07.2013	Copy of letter issued by the India government Mint, Mumbai to the complainant informing reason for return of earlier parcel
Ex.A6	07.06.2013	Copy of Speed post parcel tracking details of Parcel No.EM885828313IN
Ex.A7	07.06.2013	Copy of hand written letter issued by the complainant to the General Manager, Customer Care Hub, St. Thomas Mount
Ex.A8	08.06.2013	Copy of the hand written letter issued by the complainant to the Mylapore Post Office for receiving parcel
Ex.A9	08.06.2013	Photocopy of the cover which contained the parcel with endorsements
Ex.A10	13.07.2013	Copy of  complaint letter sent by the complainant to the Mylapore HPO
Ex.A11	15.07.2013	Copy of acknowledgement letter issued by Mylapore HPO informing receipt of the complaint dated:13.07.2013 from the complainant
Ex.A12	27.09.2013	Copy of test letter issued by the 7th opposite party to the complainant with cover
Ex.A13	21.09.2013	Copy of letter sent by the complainant the 4th opposite party with copy to other opposite parties
Ex.A14	04.10.2013	Copy of acknowledgement letter issued by Government of India for the receipt of the complaint dated:21.09.2013
Ex.A15	08.10.2013	Copy of letter issued by the 7th opposite party informing regret to the complainant about the incident
Ex.A16	22.04.2014	Copy of legal notice sent by Advocate for complainant to opposite party Nos.1 to 5 with copy of receipts for sending covers
Ex.A17	28.04.2014	Copy of letter sent by the 6th opposite party to the Advocate for the complainant after receipt of legal notice
Ex.A18	25.04.2014	Copy of reply letter sent by the 3rd opposite party to Advocate for complainant after receipt of legal notice
Ex.A19	24.05.2014	Copy of reply sent by the 7th opposite party to the Advocate for complainant to the legal notice dated:22.04.2014
Ex.A20	11.06.2014	Copy of rejoinder sent by Advocate for complainant to all the opposite parties against the reply dated:24.05.2014 sent by the 7th opposite party with postal receipts
Ex.A21	04.03.2015	Copy of email sent by the Government of India Mint, Mumbai

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 TO 7 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1		Copy of passport of the complainant
Ex.B2	05.06.2013	Copy of Tracking report of SPA EM885828313IN dated:05.06.2013
Ex.B3	31.07.2013	Copy of letter No.V-17/1386/WMR/2013 dated:31.07.2013 of India Government Mint, Mumbai  - 400 023
Ex.B4	27.09.2013	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:27.09.2013 of Manager, SPCC, Chennai a/t Shri. S. Swaminathan
Ex.B5		Copy of test letter information sought for by the Manager, SPCC, Chennai – 600 016.
Ex.B6	07.10.2013	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:07.10.2013 of Manager, SPCC, Chennai – 600 016 The SSPOs, Chennai city Central Division, Chennai- 600 017.
Ex.B7	08.10.2013	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:08.10.2013 of Manager, SPCC, Chennai – 600 016 a/t Shri. S. Swaminathan
Ex.B8	12.05.2014	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:12.05.2014 of the Manager SPCC, Chennai – 600 016 a/t the Postmaster, Mylapore HO, Chennai – 600 004
Ex.B9	03.05.2014	Copy of the letter No.H/Speed cpt/dlgs dated:13.05.2014 of the Postmaster, Mulapore HO, Chennai – 600 004 a/t The SSPOs, Chennai City Central Division – 600 017
Ex.B10		Copy of delivery slop of SPA EM885828313IN
Ex.B11	23.07.2013	Copy of letter No.H/cpt/dlgs dated:23.07.2013 of the Postmaster, Mylapore HO – 600 004 a/t The SSPOs, Chennai City Central Division, Chennai – 600 017
Ex.B12	19.05.2014	Copy of letter No.CR/F2/8/Inw/Speed/dlgs dated:19.05.2014 of SSPOs, Chennai City central Division -600 017 a/t the Manager, SPCC, Chennai – 600 016
Ex.B13	26.08.2013	Copy of letter dated:26.08.2013 from C. Santhakumar, GDS, Postman, Mylapore HO a/t the SSPOs, Chennai City Central Division Chennai – 600 017
Ex.B14	02.09.2013	Copy of letter No.CR/F2/16/Inw/Speed/dlgs dated:03.10.2013 of the SSPOs, Chennai city Central Division -600 017 a/t the Postmaster, Mylapore HO
Ex.B15	01.10.2013	Copy of PRI(P) Mylapore HO report dated:01.10.2013
Ex.B16	03.10.2013	Copy of letter No.CR/F2/16/Inw/Speed/dlgs dated:03.10.2013 of the SSPOs, Chennai City Central Division – 600 017 a/t the Postmaster, Mylapore HO
Ex.B17	24.05.2014	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:24.05.2014 of the Manager, SPCC, Chennai a/t M/s. Jenkins William, Advocate, Addl. Law Chambers, Chennai – 600 104
Ex.B18	16.06.2014	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:16.06.2014 of the Manager, SPCC, Chennai a/t M/s. Jenkins William, Advocate, Addl. Law Chambers, Chennai – 600 104
Ex.B19	16.06.2014	Copy of letter No.SP/10/1265/13 dated:16.06.2014 of the Manager, SPCC, Chennai a/t The SSPOs, Chennai City Central Division, Chennai – 600 017
Ex.B20	22.07.2014	Copy of letter No.CR/F2/16/Inw/Speed/dlgs dated:22.07.2014 of SSPOs  Chennai city Central Division a/t Shri. S. Swaminathan
Ex.B21	29.09.2014	Copy of letter dated:29.09.2014 of SSPOs Chennai City Central Division a/t The Manager, NSH, Chennai – 600 016
Ex.B22		Copies of rulings in Comependium on disposal of Public complaints

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT