State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Mani S/O Shri Subban, 1/75 A, Anna ... vs 1.The Post Master, Ottanatham, ... on 30 May, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT THIRU R VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER F.A. No. 69 of 2021 (Against the order passed in C.C. No.233 of 2015 dated 21.02.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Coimbatore. Tuesday, the 30th day of May 2023 S. Mani D.No.1/75A Anna Nagar Sethumadai Post Pollachi Taluk- 642 133 rep. by his Authorised Agent Sri S.Shanmuga Sundaram .. Appellant/ Complainant - Vs - 1. The Post Master Otta Natham Ottapidaram -628 302 Tuticorin District. 2. The Post Master General, Tuticorin Division Tuticorin - 628 008 .. Respondents 1 & 2/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : M/s. Shanmuga Sundaram Counsel for the Respondents/ opposite parties : M/s.M. Praveen Kumar This appeal came before us for final hearing on 02.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 21.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.233 of 2015, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.
2. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:
The Complainant had sent a copy of the gift deed dated 08.04.2015 executed in favour of his wife Janaki by him, to the Village Administrative Officer, Kollenginar P.O. (via) Ottanatham, Tuticorin District, by registered post with acknowledgement due, through Vettaikaranpudur post, on 13.07.2015 in Receipt No. ART 40109309212. The said gift deed was sent to the Village Administrative Officer for the purpose of issuing patta in the name of the complainant's wife. But the acknowledgement card containing the signature of the Village Administrative Officer has not been received by the complainant. Hence, he preferred a complaint to the Sub Postmaster, Vettaikaranpudur and the said complaint was forwarded to Ottanatham Post Office. Thereafter the complainant received a phone message from Phone No.0461-22683707 of the Sub Postmaster, Ottanatham stating that the said registered cover has been delivered on 15.07.2015. The complainant had also chosen to verify through internet, which indicated that the registered post has been forwarded from Vettaikaranpudur Post office but the acknowledgement card has not been delivered to him. Thereafter, the complainant had sent a copy of a Partition Deed Document No.276 executed in the year 2006 to the Village Administrative Officer, Ottabidaram on 11.08.2015 by registered post acknowledgement due through Vettaikaranpudur post office. But again, the acknowledgement card containing the signature of the Village Administrative Officer was not delivered to the complainant. Hence, the complainant verified with the Superintendent of Post Office, Pollachi and found that the said cover has been delivered on 14.08.2015. But the acknowledgement card was not received by the complainant. Hence, alleging negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties, he has come forward with the complaint, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony of the complainant.
3. Opposing the complaint, the opposite parties have filed their defence stating that the registered article No.RT401093092N booked by the complainant on 13.07.2015 at Vettaikaranpudur Sub Post office under Pollachi Division was received at Ottanatham post office on 15.07.2015 and was sent to Kooankinar BO on the very same day, with duly invoiced in the BO slip dated 15.07.2015. The said registered article was delivered to the addressee on 15.07.2015 itself. Both the BPM and GDS MD confirmed the delivery of the article and the acknowledgement card received from Kollankinar BO was despatched properly to the Tuticorin RMS. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the opposite parties. No written complaint has been received from the complainant or from the SPM, Vettaikaranpudur SO. The SPM, Ottanatham had stated that the SPM, Vettaikaranpudur called over phone and asked about the details of delivery in respect of the article RT40109302IN. The SPM, Ottanatham had given reply that the said article has been delivered on 15.07.2015 and the acknowledgement card received from the Kollankinar BO has been despatched to Tuticorin RMS on the very same date. It was also confirmed with the then VAO by the Inspector-Posts, Tuticorin whether the articles have been received by him. Both the articles booked by the complainant have been delivered to the addressee without any delay and within the departmental delivery norms. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the opposite parties and hence sought to dismiss the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, along with proof affidavit, the complainant has filed 6 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6. On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavits 5 documents have been filed and were marked as Exhibits B1 to B5.
5. After analyzing the entire evidence filed by both the parties, the District Forum had come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and hence dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.
6. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he had sent two registered posts, one on 13.07.2015 and another on 11.08.2015 from Vettaikaranpudur Post office. But he has not received the acknowledgement cards. Therefore, there is negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is the reply of the opposite parties that the complainant had not given any written complaint so far, regarding the non-receipt of the acknowledgement cards. Further, the registered posts have been delivered to the addressee on time and the same has also been intimated to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.
8. But, we are of the opinion that the question of deficiency of service would arise only if the registered post was not delivered to the addressee or no proper reply was given by the postal authorities when an enquiry was made by the complainant. Eventhough the complainant had not given any written complaint, the opposite parties have clarified and confirmed the delivery of the registered covers to the complainant. Inspite of the confirmation by the postal department, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission stating that he has not received the acknowledgement cards. In such circumstances, the complainant ought to have stated in the complaint about the damage caused to him due to the non-delivery of the acknowledgement cards to him. In the complaint no such averment is made. The complainant has made only a bald and vague statements. Such a complaint ought to have been dismissed with heavy costs. However, the District Forum had chosen to dismiss the complaint without imposing any costs, taking a lenient view. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 21.02.2019 passed in C.C. No.233 of 2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R.SUBBIAH MEMBER PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May/2023