State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
L.S.Santharam,Madurai. vs The Sub Post Master, Jaihind Puram ... on 30 November, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.04/2020
(Against the order made in C.C.No.115/2017 dated 03.12.2019 on the file of
the District Forum, Madurai.)
WEDNESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
L.S.Santharam,
S/o Sivaramier,
Plot No.23, Shastha Street,
Jeeva Nagar, 1st Street,
Jaihindpuram,
Madurai - 625 011. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Sub-Post Master,
Jaihindpuram Sup Post Office,
Jaihindpuram,
Madurai - 625 011. 1st Respondent/1st Opposite Party
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Madurai City Division,
Madurai - 625 002. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
3. The Chief Post Master General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai - 600 002. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party
4. The Director General of Postal Department,
Head Quarters,
New Delhi - 110 001. 4th Respondent/4th Opposite Party
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.C.Ravichandran, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents-1 to 4/Opp.Parties-1to4 : Mr.R.Ravindran, Advocate.
2
This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 19.09.2022 and on hearing
the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this
Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Madurai made in C.C.No.115/2017, dated 03.12.2019 dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Madurai.
3. The complainant suffering by an order, dismissal of the complaint in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai (hereinafter in short "District Forum") have preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The case of the complainant in the complaint is as follows;- The complainant has sent two postal covers addressed to one Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan Rafimarg, New Delhi and the second letter to the Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafimarg, New Delhi on 14.02.2017 with proof of delivery acknowledgement card from 1st opposite party Jashindpuram sub-post office, Madurai. The complainant also paid Rs.115 for each 3 article towards service charges and Rs.15/- towards tax. This amount has been paid for delivery of the articles and for returning of proof of acknowledgment card. The complainant has not received proof of delivery for the above two articles over a period of one month. Hence he was not able to know whether the articles have been delivered to the addressee or not. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and enquired about the delivery letter and sent a complaint letter to the 2nd opposite party. He has also sent complaint letter to 2 to 4 th opposite parties on 13.03.2017. The complainant received a reply from the 1st opposite party stating that the first article has been delivered on 17.02.2017 but there is no word about the other article. The complainant also received the reply from 3rd opposite party stating that both the articles have been dispatched to the concerned addressee but no word about the proof of delivery cards. The complainant on receipt of reply from the opposite parties sent a reply asking for proof of delivery cards and also stated that another way of service of proof is not acceptable. The basis for filing the case is for refund of Rs.230/- paid towards delivery charges due to non-returning of proof of delivery cards annexed with both the articles and for compensation.
5. Written version filed by the first opposite parties are as follows:-
The opposite parties admit that the complainant has sent two speed post article on 14.02.2017 addressed to Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafimarg, New Delhi from sub-post office Jaihindpuram, Madurai. It is also admitted that both the articles have been delivered on 17.02.2017 at New Delhi. The complainant has sent a letter dated 13.03.2017 to the postal department regarding non-receipt of proof of delivery card. The complainant sent a complaint to customer care centre meant for redressal of such 4 deficiency. Complainant also lodged the complaint in the website online from where he received reply from the delivery post office, New Delhi on 17.03.2017 that the articles have been delivered on 17.02.2017. Hence the articles were delivered to the addressee properly. The copy of the delivery particulars has been sent by the 1 st opposite party to the complainant on 18.03.2017.
The delivery of the said speed post articles to the addressee have been ensured and sincere efforts have been taken to intimate the same to the customers. As per the Post Office Rules the customer can lodge complaint after completion of 21 days from the date of booking for non-receipt of proof of delivery card. Apart from that, to overcome the problems of customers the postal department has also introduced the Track and Trace facility in the website to the General Public to know about the delivery status. Anyone can download the status report and it is authenticated document. The status report has been sent by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant and that was not accepted by the complainant. As such there is no justification of the complainant allegations that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant also fails to mention how he has incurred loss in non-receipt of proof of delivery card. The complainant is trying to claim huge amount by an unlawful way. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 completely exonerates the Government or any Officer of the post office and the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commission, Chennai has also exempted the postal authorities under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Hence the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.5
6. The Learned District Forum, after taking into account of the evidences adduced by both parties, had held that dismiss the complaint concluded there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act comes to rescue of the opposite party. The Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act clearly laid down "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.
7. Being aggrieved against that order the complainant challenging it by filling this appeal stating that the opposite party not delivered „proof of delivery card‟, despite after filing complaint to them. The learned District Forum neglected the admissions of The Assistant Director (Tech & BD), Southern region, Madurai, pleaded on 14.08.2017, to regret the inconvenience caused by them for the non- receipt of Proof of delivery card, even after filing the case in some other article sent through the opposite parties and also does not focus its view into what is the service of opposite parties which covers, the first part is delivering the postal article and the second part is returning the proof of delivery card to the complainant without default. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and to set aside the District Forum order.
8. No additional evidences were adduced by appellants in this appeal before this Commission.
9. Point for consideration is;-
(1) Whether the opposite party committed any negligence on their part by defaulting Proof of Delivery to the complainant or not?6
(2) Whether the order passed by the Learned District Forum, Madurai in C.C.No.115/2017, dated 03.12.2019 is sustainable under law or not?
10. Point no.1: The complainant has sent two postal covers addressed to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan Rafimarg, New Delhi and the second letter to the Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakthi Bhavan, Rafimarg, New Delhi on 14.02.2017 with acknowledgement card through 1st opposite party Jashindpuram sub-post office, Madurai. The complainant paid Rs.115/- for each article towards service charges and Rs.15/- towards tax. The complainant has not received proof of delivery for the above two articles over a period of one month. When he approached the first opposite party and enquired about the delivery letter and also sent a complaint to the second opposite party. The complainant received a reply from the first opposite party informing the articles has been delivered on 17.02.2017 but no information was furnished with regard to another article. The complainant also received the reply from third opposite party informing both articles have been despatched concerned addressee on receipt of the reply the complainant demanded the proof of delivery cards. The non delivery proof of delivery or acknowledgement card caused the complainant mental worries and loss of money and delay in his further course of action due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum it was dismissed by the learned District Forum after contesting by both parties.
11. The counsel for appellant would contend that, the opposite parties Postal department cannot claim any immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act. 7 The opposite party has defaulted in non returning of proof of delivery card to the complainant and relying upon the citation, the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in revision petition - Post Office & Another -Vs- Akhilesh Grover dated 6.10.2017 - "The petitioner cannot take shelter behind Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act to absolve of its responsibility by merely stating that the respondent/ complainant should have kept track of the article on the postal website of the day today movement of the article. It is for the petitioner to render the service for their premium product of speed post. Hence, there is a clear cut deficiency of service on their part and the department continues to seek shelter under Section 6 of the Postal Act for its omissions and commissions in non-delivery of the article in time. Thereafter they have also not given any explanation as to why they did not monitor the speed post articles' receipt and dispatch". In the above citation it was discussed with regard to the immunity to the opposite parties postal department in para 10 "Any statute providing immunity as to the liability of service provider does not come in the way of right of consumer to the compensated in terms in section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby Consumer Forum after satisfying about the deficiency in service may order to pay such an amount as compensation for any loss or injury including mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort suffered by consumer due to the negligence of the OP, therefore, the immunity under the law of any officer or of any Government authority is nothing to do with the concept of compensation to a consumer as to the negligence of the OPs in not maintaining standard of service". The above findings were squarely applicable to the present appeal.
8
12. The counsel for the respondents/opposite parties claimed immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act but, it was declined by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the above order.
13. In the recent order pronounced by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was relied on by the counsel for the appellants is squarely applicable to the present appeal since the question of immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Act was as a discussed the immunity under the law any officer or any Government authority is nothing to do with the concept of compensation to a consumer as to the negligence of the opposite parties in not maintaining standard of service.
14. The counsel for the respondents/opposite parties also relied upon the following citations.
(1) AIR 1980 SC 431 - in the case of - In Union of Indian (UOI) -Vs-
Mohamed Nazim.
(2) I (2014) CPJ 1997 (NC) - in the case of - Ravinder Nath Upadhya -Vs- Sr.Supdt.of Post Office.
(3) 2011 CPJ 27 (NC) - in the case of - Union of India Others -Vs- M.L.Bora
15. The complainant sent two postal articles through the first opposite party‟s post office. Both the articles were delivered to the addressees. But the complainant‟s grievance is the proof of delivery was not returned to the complainant. For knowing the date of delivery for taking further action the opposite party also admits the proof of delivery not returned to the complainant they claimed immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act. When the complainant availed the services of opposite 9 party proof of delivery alone complete the transactions. When the opposite party not returned the proof of delivery the process of transactions is incomplete.
16. During the oral arguments the counsel for the respondents informed that the Postal department need not returned the proof of delivery in Speed Post since the complainant is having the opportunity to verify the transactions of his articles through website.
17. The counsel for the appellant produced a sample of the proof of delivery in which it was mentioned in the part of Ex.A12 "important this card should be returned in speed post back side to the senders address". The above form is to be printed and used by the postal department as proof of delivery to the sender. The above proof of delivery was not returned to the complainant for his postal article. Therefore, the opposite parties committed default and deficiency in service on their part and answered accordingly for the point for consideration no.1.
18. Point no.2: The learned District Forum passed its order relying upon the question of immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Act. But, it was clarified in the citation relied on by the counsel for the appellant the question of immunity is nothing to do with the concept of compensation to the consumer. When the opposite parties not maintaining the standard of service.
19. Therefore, this Commission has decided in favour of the complainant the learned District Forum in its order dismiss the complaint. No relief was given to the complainant. When the complainant is able to prove the negligence committed by the opposite party for non delivery of proof of delivery the complainant is entitled to get relief claimed in his complaint (a) returning of the amount of Rs.230/- collected for the two articles sent on 14.02.2017. (b) to return the amount of Rs.500/- used 10 by way of several complaint letter with the opposite parties about for the non delivery of proof of delivery annexed in the above articles. (c) to give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service. (d) to give an amount of Rs.50,000/- for willful default by the opposite parties. (e) to give an amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental worries for the non return of proof of delivery. (f) and also Rs.5000/- as cost.
20. The complainant is eligible to get the benefit of returning of the amount of Rs.230/- in (a) column prayer, and Rs.500/- in (b) column prayer, and awarding of Rs.1000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in (c) column prayer, and Rs.2000/- in (f) column prayer will meets the ends of justice. The prayer columns in (c, d,) are excess it is need not to be awarded since the default not proved as willful on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is not sustainable under law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration no.2.
21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai made in C.C.No.115/2017, dated 03.12.2019 and the complaint is partly allowed.
Directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the amount of Rs.230/- collected for the postal articles service charges from the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards expenditure for sending complaint letters to the opposite parties, and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant.
11
Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 30th day of November 2022.
N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
12