State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master General And Another ... vs Mr. Basant Sahani Hyderabad on 23 April, 2008
A A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - AT HYDERABAD FA 116/2008 against CC No. 795/2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum I, Hyderabad Between- 1. The Post master General, General Post office, Abids, Hyderabad. 2. The Manager ( Operation), Speed Post Service, General Post Office, Abids, Hyderabad. .. Appellants/ Opposite parties And Mr. Basant Sahani, M/s. Mukund and Company, H.no.15-6-38/3, Subhadra Market, Oathanwadi, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad 12 .. Respondent./complainant Counsel for the Appellants - Mr. V. Vinod Kumar Addl. CG Standing Counsel. Counsel for the Respondent - M/s. Gopi Rajesh. CORAM - HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO PRESIDENT SMT. M. SHREESHA LADY MEMBER
AND SRI G. BHUPATHI REDDY MALE MEMBER Wednesday, the 23rd Day of April, Two Thousand Eight Oral order - ( as per Sri G. Bhupathi Reddy, Honble Member )
- - -
This is an appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the order passed by the District Forum I, Hyderabad dated 22nd day of October, 2007.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he booked a cover with the second opposite party on 8.11.2002 to reach the same within 24 hours through Speed Post to M/s. Super Knit Industries, 5409-A-26, Floor, New Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi by paying Rs.120/-. The speed post cover contains three demand drafts bearing nos. (1) 279201 for Rs.9,970/- (2)279202 for Rs.9,970 and (3) 279203 for Rs.9,970/- dated 6.11.2004 each. The said DDs cover was wrongly delivered to the Manoj Enterprises on 9.11.2002. The complainant immediately rushed to his HDFC bank which issued the DDs and came to know that the said DDs were already encashed. In spite of the complaints on 25.11.2002 and 1.1.2003 and a letter of Super Knit Industries dated 10.12.2002 to the opposite parties, there is no reply from them. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum to pay Rs.30,000/- for wrong delivery of the cover, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and loss and Rs.3000/- towards costs.
The opposite parties resisted the plea in their counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the statutory provisions contained in Sec.
6 of IPO Act and Rule 668 of IPO Rules. As per booking, they correctly dispatched to M/s. Super Knit Industries on the same day i.e., on 8.11.2002 and they did not know about the contents of the article.
Complaints were received from the complainant on 22.11.2002, 25.11.2002 and also legal notice on 28.10.2002 about the non-delivery of the cover at the destination which contains three DDs and also to settle the case. They requested for dismissal of the complaint.
In support of their respective claims, the complainant filed Ex A1 to A18 along with affidavit evidence and the opposite parties also filed Ex B1 and B6 .
On the basis of the material available on record, the District Forum held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12 percent p.a. from 8.11.2002 till the date of realization, Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs within one month. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.
The point that arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the order passed by the District Forum is maintainable.
There is no dispute that the complainant booked a cover with the second opposite party to send the same through Speed Post on 8.11.2002 to M/s. Super Knit Industries, 5409-A-26, Floor, New Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi by paying Rs.120/-. The said cover has to be reached the New Delhi address within 24 hours. The speed post cover contains three demand drafts bearing nos. (1) 279201 for Rs.9,970/- (2)279202 for Rs.9,970 and (3) 279203 for Rs.9,970/- dated 6.11.2004 each. The said DDs cover was wrongly delivered to the Manoj Enterprises on 9.11.2002. The complainant immediately rushed to his HDFC bank which issued the DDs and came to know that the said DDs were already encashed by Manoj Enterprises. On the basis of the material available on record, the District Forum held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards Drafts amount of DDs with 12 percent interest, Rs.5000/-towards compensation and Rs.2000/-towards costs. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants that the finding of the District Forum that the complainant sent three DDs on 8.11.2002 through Speed Post said to have been issued by HDFC Bank in November, 2004 is false is not sustainable. The respondent resisted the plea. The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding that there was wrong delivery of the cover, on account of that, DDs were encashed by a third party. The respondent/complainant has filed documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.A1 to A18 along with affidavit evidence. Ex. A1 is the postal receipt. Ex A2 is the cover. Ex A3 is the Xerox copy of the draft for Rs.9,970/- along with postal receipts.
Ex. A4 is the letter from the speed post business office to the Super knit Industries. Ex. A5 is the letter from Mukund and Company to Super knit Industries. Ex A6 is the acknowledgement of the booking office.
Ex. A7 is the inward clearing of the drafts three in number. Ex. A8 is the letter from the complainant to the opposite parties. Ex. A9 is the letter from the Super knit Industries to the opposite party. Ex. A10 is the letter from the complainant to the opposite party. Ex. A11 to A14 are also letters. Prior to the filing of the complaint, a legal notice Ex. A15 was issued. Ex. A16 to A18 are also letters. These documents goes to show that the complainant has sent postal cover through Speed Post which was wrongly delivered to some other person and the some other person has encashed the said drafts . Ex B5 is the letter from the opposite party to Mukund and company. Ex B6 is the letter from the Government of India to M/s. Mukund and company. These documents goes to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. After taking all the documentary evidence into consideration, the District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants . The appellant further submits that the complainant has neither mentioned in the complaint nor in the affidavit evidence in whose name the DDs were issued by the HDFC bank. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable.
The documents filed by the complainant discloses that Manoj Enterprieses have fraudulently encahsed the DDs drawring in favour of other parties. The appellants submit that Manoj Enterprises is a necessary and proper party to implead in this petition. For non-impleading the necessary party, the petition ought to have dismissed. But the appellants have not taken any steps to implead Manoj Enterprises as a party. The appellants further submit that the complainant never obtained DDs from HDFC bank nor issued any cheques from his account but the cheque specimen Xerox copies provided were issued by Sri Ganeshaya Corporation. This aspect was not discussed by the District Forum. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. The appellant submits that Sec. 6 of IPO Act and Rule 66 B of IPO Rules exempts the Government of India from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to Speed Post Article. In case of delivery of speed post article beyond the norms determined by the Department of posts from time to time, compensation will be provided which shall be equal to composite speed post charges paid. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. In support of the appellants claim, the appellant have relied on Head Postmaster PO , Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs Vijaya Rattan Aggarwal RP No.15/97 dated 18th Septemeber, 2002, wherein, it was held that the right of the consumer in such cases cannot go beyond what is provided statutorily holds good. The principle laid down in this case is not applicable in our present case is concerned. In support of his claim, the appellants also relied on in another case in Union of India Vs. RC Puri in RP No 314 of 2003 dated 29th August, 2005. The principle laid down in this case is not applicable in our present case. In our present case is concerned, the respondent/complainant has sent the postal cover by way of speed post and post office has delivered the said postal cover containing DDs to a third person. The fact that the third person has encashed the said DDs is proved through documentary evidence filed by the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding. There are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Form.
The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Time for compliance six weeks..
President Lady Male Member Member 23.04.2008.