BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th September 2009
COMPLAINT NO.32/2009
(Admitted on 16.02.2009)
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Sri.Y.Subraya Bhat,
So. Late Shri Shankara Bhat,
Saraswathi Nivas,
Vijayanagar, Natekal,
P.O. Asaigoli,
Mangalore Taluk 574 199. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.B. Shrikrishna Bhat).
VERSUS
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mangalore Division,
Balmatta,
Mangalore 575 002.
2. Post Man (III) (who was on duty on 24.7.2008)
Panambur Post Office,
Panambur – 575 010. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Sri. Felix Cardoza).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant filed the above complaint stating that he had addressed a letter to the Public Information Officer, office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Panambur on 23.7.2008. The said letter was posted at Balmatta Post office on the same day and the said letter was supposed to be delivered to the addressee by the concerned postman attached to the Panambur Post Office. It is submitted that the said letter to the Public Information Officer sought very important information, the postman without making proper enquiry returned the said letter to the sender/Complainant with the endorsement “no such Public Information Officer at Asst. Superintendent of Police at Panambur”. It is stated that in every Government office has its own Public Information Officer, the Opposite Party No.2 was negligent in his duty and failed to serve the letter to the concerned addressee which amounts to deficiency. And further submitted that after receipt of the letter the Complainant issued a legal notice on 22.9.2008 to the 1st Opposite Party, requesting him to take disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd Opposite Party and sought for compensation. The 1st Opposite Party without making proper enquiry sent a reply instead of sending to the advocate of the Complainant sent the same to some other advocate, it is also submitted that the 1st Opposite Party was negligent while rendering service and hence the above complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation for the mental agony and the loss suffered by the Complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version and submitted that a registered letter dated 23.7.2008 from Balmatta Sub-Post office addressed to the Public Information Officer, office of the Asst. Superintendent of police Panambur was returned to the sender with the remarks “no such Public Information Officer at Asst. Superintendent of Police office, Panambur” on 24.7.2008 is admitted. It is submitted that the statement of the postman concerned was obtained, wherein it was stated by the postman that the registered letter was taken for delivery by him to the given address and it was informed to the postman that there was no such Public Information Officer at the office of the Asst. Superintendent of police and no one took delivery of the said letter, it was returned back with the said remarks. While giving reply to the notice vide letter No.CFC/575000-081215 dated 11.11.2008, it was inadvertently addressed as Balakrishna Bhat instead of B.Srikrishna Bhat which was a clerical error. However, the letter was delivered to the right person and it was not received back undelivered. The Opposite Party No.2 was not negligent and postman is not aware of any Public Information Officer, based on the reply of the officers in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, postman had made the remarks and contended that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
As far as Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, though he appeared through the counsel but not filed separate version. The Opposite Party No.1 being a Senior Superintendent of Post offices denied the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 in their version.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Y.Subraya Bhat (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.G.V.Lakshminarayana (RW1), Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (Current charges) of the 1st Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served by the Complainant. One Sri.H.Jithendriya (RW2) – Opposite Party No.2 also filed counter affidavit. The Opposite Party No.1 produced some citations.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute are that the Complainant addressed a letter to the Public Information Officer, office of the Asst. Superintendent of police Panambur on 23.7.2008. The said letter was posted at Balmatta Post office on the same day.
Now the point in dispute is that, the above said letter returned to the Complainant with an endorsement stating that “no such Public Information Officer at Asst. Superintendent of police at Panambur”. It is contended by the Complainant that the concerned postman without making proper enquiry returned the said letter to the sender/Complainant in this case and the postman was grossly negligent in his duty and failed to serve the letter which amounts to deficiency and further alleged that after returning the letter the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 not taken/made proper enquiry with the 2nd Opposite Party that also amounts to deficiency.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Senior Superintendent of post offices contended that there is no negligence on the part of the postman because the concerned postman visited the address given in the letter but it was informed to the postman that there was no such Public Information Officer at the office of the Asst. Superintendent of police and since no one took delivery of the said letter, it was returned back with the said remarks and contended that there is no lapse.
In the given case, the CW1 examined and produced Ex C1 to C10. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, Opposite Party No.1 examined.
On considering the above materials on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no lapse on the part of the postman concerned because the endorsement issued by the postman reveals as follows:
“No such officer at Asst. Superintendent of Police office Panambur”.
By looking at the above endorsement one cannot say that the postman was not visited the office of the addressee i.e., Superintendent of Police at Panambur. The affidavit of the Opposite Party No.1 reveals that the postman was informed that there was no such Public Information Officer at the office of the Asst. Superintendent of police and since no one took delivery of the said letter it was returned back with the said remarks. Nowadays it is a matter of fact that until and unless the name board put in the office premises it is very difficult to serve the letters especially the letters addressed under the I.T. Act. In the given case, since no one took delivery of the said letter or in the absence of any name board in the office it is very difficult to serve the letters. The Complainant ought to have examined Asst. Superintendent of police to give evidence whether there is any identification by putting name board stating that Public Information Officer. In the absence of any evidence to that effect we cannot consider that the postman was negligent. The Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 where under it defines as follows:
Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage: - The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of 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.
From the above definition it is very clear that one has to prove before the FORA that the postman acted fraudulently or willfully or default. In the given case, there is no necessity to act willfully or fraudulently because naturally the postman not aware of the contents of the letter or there is no illwillness between the Complainant and the postman. Under such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the Complainant to satisfy that the postman knowingly by identifying the Public Information Officer willfully not delivered the letter. But in the given case, the best witness is the Superintendent of Police who is the addressee in this letter. If there exists a name board in the office of the addressee mentioning “public information officer”, inspite of the name board in the office if the postman failed to deliver the letter we would have appreciated the Complainant in this case. But in the given case, there is no material/credible evidence to substantiate that the Opposite Parties are negligent in their duties. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merits deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of September 2009.)
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Y.Subraya Bhat – Complainant.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 22.09.2008: Legal notice addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mangalore.
Ex C2 – : Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C3 – : Letter cum acknowledgement.
Ex C4 – 22.09.2008: Copy of the legal notice endorsed to the Post Man III, Panambur Post Office.
Ex C5 – 29.09.2008: Postal acknowledgement by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex C6 – 11.11.2008: Reply by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mangalore Division.
Ex C7 - : Postal cover addressed to Sri.Balakrishna Bhat, Advocate, Mangalore.
Ex C8 - : Postal cover addressed to the Public Information Officer, O/O Asst. Superintendent of Police, Panambur.
Ex C9 – 27.07.2008: Complainant’s letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Mangalore.
Ex C10 – 29.08.2008: Reply by the Superintendent of Police, Mangalore.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Sri.G.V.Lakshminarayana, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (Current charges) of the 1st Opposite Party.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:15.09.2009 PRESIDENT
