State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sub Post Master,Old Bus Stand Post ... vs R. Jeyapal, S/O.Rajamani Nadar,133-D, ... on 30 December, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.117/2011
[Against order in C.C.No.17/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Tuticorin] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
1. The Sub Post Master, | Old Bus Stand Post Office, | Appellants / Opposite Parties Thoothukudi. | |
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, | Thoothukudi District, | Chidambaranagar, | Thoothukudi. | Vs. R. Jeyapal, | Respondent / Complainant S/o.Rajamani Nadar, | 133-D, Palayamkottai Road, HoH | Thoothukudi. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and to pay the costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.05.2010 in C.C.17/2009.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsel and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants / OPs :
M/s. B.Sekar, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s. R. Samy Ayyah, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The facts leading to this appeal:-
The complainant/respondent had sent two registered post through first opposite party, on 16.10.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. having weight below 20 grams, for which, the first opposite party collected/charged Rs.28/- per registered post, which is in excess of Rs.3/-, over and above the permitted rate. The complainant when questioned, first opposite party represented that they are collecting a late fee, which is incorrect, since there was no need to pay late fee, when the registered post was sent at 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. When the complainant came to know that he was cheated by the first opposite party, he suffered great mental agony and humiliation, and by collecting totally Rs.6/- excess, the first opposite party committed deficiency, for which, the second opposite party is vicariously liable. Thus alleging deficiency, a consumer complaint was filed, claiming a damage of Rs.10,000/- with costs.
3. The opposite parties/appellants admitting the registered posts sent by the complainant, as well as collection of Rs.28/- per registered post, resisted the case inter alia contending, that when the complainant came to the office for booking registered posts, he was informed that there was some technical problem in the Computer and due to the same, it showed automatically late fee of Rs.3/- also, that despite the complainant was informed about this defect and requested him to go elsewhere or wait for rectification of the defect, he insisted to collected Rs.28/-, including the late fee shown by the Computer, voluntary, and on that basis alone, the amount was collected, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, warranting any mental agony or humiliation to the complainant as incorrectly pleaded, praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying other averments also.
4. The District Forum in its curious and cryptic order, which reflects the Forum has not read the affidavit of the opposite parties, has recorded a finding that to prove the explanation offered by the opposite parties, there is no supportive evidence and collection of Rs.3/- as late fee, should be construed as deficiency. In this view, even not giving any reason, how the amount is quantified, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid, as compensation for mental agony with costs of Rs.1,000/- which is under challenge.
5. There is no dispute between the parties regarding two registered posts, under Receipt No.R.L.A.D.A.113 and 114, sent by the complainant to someone on 16.10.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. or between 9.00 a.m. 9.30 a.m. It is also not in dispute, that the first opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.28/- per registered posts, whereas the admitted amount being Rs.25/- when there was no late fee. If late fee is taken into account, the amount collected must be correct namely Rs.28/- per posts. When the complainant has booked the registered post, it is not the lien period, where late fee is required. But in this case admittedly, per registered posts, Rs.3/- was collected as late fee.
Therefore, it appears, on the face value, the first opposite party had collected excess amount of Rs.6/- from the complainant. Therefore, it is to be seen, whether the first opposite party had collected this amount, on his own or informing to the complainant about the defect in the computer, at his instance, willing to pay Rs.28/-. Despite information by the first opposite party regarding the late fee shown in the computer mistakenly, the complainant had offered to pay the said amount probably to save his time or avoid to go elsewhere to send the registered post, then that cannot be taken as illegal demand or illegal collection, bringing the same, within the meaning of deficiency in service, collecting over and above. In this context, we have to see the pleadings and affidavits, which are essential since the cases are decided on the basis of Proof Affidavit alone.
6. In the complaint, there is an allegation When the complainant enquired the abnormality in the demand, 1st opposite party has replied that he is demanding Rs.3/- in the for the late fees. It is not the case, the excess amount was collected, not giving to the credit to the Post Office. There is no other allegation, against the first opposite party except saying without verifying the veracity of 1st opposite party reply and also believing her words paid Rs.28/- per register post. The opposite parties in the Written Version questioned the above allegations, in detail and explained in Para 4 of the Written Version, about the technical problem in the Computer, which had shown late fee also, which was informed to the complainant even advising the complainant, to wait for sometime for rectification or else to book it in the nearby office. It is further stated categorically, the complainant insisted to book the articles and registered post, even with late fee. We find no reason to disbelieve the above said Written Version, since the first opposite party or Staff working there, are not going to derive any benefits by collecting excess, which was shown by the computer as late fee due to technical problem. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the complainant alone, in order to avoid the waiting or go elsewhere to send the registered post, considering the petty nature of the amount, should have voluntarily paid, which cannot be taken as negligent act or deficiency in service, which was not properly considered by the District Forum, with reference to Proof Affidavit filed by the complainant, as well as the Proof Affidavit filed on behalf of the first opposite party.
7. The complainant in support of his case, filed Proof Affidavit on 28.01.2010 that is after the Written Version filed by the opposite parties on 5.11.2009. In the Written Version as pointed out supra, explanation offered. If the explanation offered by the first opposite party in the Written Version was not correct or misleading, the complainant who is a practicing lawyer, who knew the intrinsic of the averments, should have denied the same in the Proof Affidavit, as if, the first opposite party has not explained, and he has not offered to pay the excess amount etc., which are absent in the Proof Affidavit, thereby, not challenging the Written Version. In fact the complaint is filed, once again, in the form of Proof Affidavit. Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office by name Thangavelu has filed a Proof Affidavit on behalf of the first opposite party, wherein, he has explained, what had happened on 16.10.98 in Para 3 of the affidavit, reiterating the same in Para 6 of the affidavit, which must be known to the complainant also. Atleast after the filing of the Proof Affidavit, which is in accordance with the Written Version, not challenged by the complainant in his Proof Affidavit, he should have filed another Proof Affidavit, challenging the averments in the affidavit of the first opposite party, which he failed.
Under the above said circumstances, we are inclined to accept the explanation offered by the first opposite party, than the case projected by the complainant, which appears to be unnatural, and unbelievable, whereas the case projected by the first opposite party appears to be natural and acceptable and when there is evidence by way of Proof Affidavit on behalf of the first opposite party, the recording of the District Forum, the explanation given by the opposite parties, not supported by any evidence is erroneous, and does not stand to reason to believe and there cannot be any document, also as expected imaginatively. For the above said reasons, accepting the defence, we conclude that the complainant should have paid the amount, including the late fee as mistakenly shown by the Computer, which was informed to him, voluntarily and later on he has filed a false case, which will not come within the meaning of negligence or deficiency in service, warranting any compensation. Hence, the appeal is meritorious, to be accepted.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in CC.17/2009, dt.14.05.2010 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
9. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellants/opposite parties duly discharged, since appellants succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT