POSTMASTER, WALAJAPET POST OFFICE vs N. DURAISAMY

THE complaint was laid alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering a registered letter sent by the complainant to the addressee and claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages with costs.

THE complainant''s case, in brief, is that he sent on 11.2.1995 a letter/cover containing money transaction forms to the value of Rs. 500/- issued by M/s. Progressive Financial Services Limited, Madras to his relative in Bangalore by registered post with acknowledgement due. He was issued with the receipt by the first opposite party. THE said letter has not been delivered to the addressee. When the complainant approached the opposite party who advised to contact the second opposite party, the second opposite party though he was brought to the notice in writing by the complainant on 11.3.1995 took his own time till 18.5.1995 to reply stating that the registered letter sent by the complainant to Bangalore was returned to the sender with a notice "address not known" on 16.2.1995 itself and that actual date of return is not traceable and hence requested the complainant to wait for some more time. Since there was no further response the complainant sent another letter to which a reply was sent stating that inquiry is under progress. On account of the non-delivery, the complainant had put to loss, hardship and agony and hence the complaint. The opposite parties contended stating as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The postal authorities cannot be held responsible for loss of any article, mis-delivery, wrong delivery, etc. The complainant is not a consumer. It is not a commercial transaction. The address that was noted on the cover was not a correct address and hence the office at SPM, Sriramapuram returned the article with endorsement "Addressee not known". Since the addressee was not known, it was returned to the sender with the endorsement ''No such person, not known''. An interim reply was also sent. Furnishing of sender''s address is mandatory. The complainant had not furnished his address in the article. Therefore, the article could not be returned by SPM, Sriramapuram Post Office for redelivery to the sender. The registered letter was received by Anna Road Post Office and delivered to M/s. Progressive Financial Services Private Limited, Madras-2 since the cover contained the said inscription of the firm. Or the letter would have been delivered to the said Madras address after seeing the contents by the Sriramapuram Post Office. The contents of the registered letter were called for from the firm and kept with the file. The outer cover used by the complainant is not available. As the date of redelivery of the registered letter under reference was not traceable at Walajapet Sub-Post office , the office of delivery namely Sriramapuram Post Office was requested to issue a backward search bill to find out the stage by stage disposal of the registered letter. As it is cumbersome process, it could not be traced. However, the department took all efforts to find out the missed article and it is found that the registered letter was delivered by Anna Road Post Office, Madras to Progressive Financial Services Private Limited. There was no deficiency of service. It was only the complainant''s negligence that caused the wrong delivery. The complainant had not furnished his residential address on the outer cover. Hence, the article was returned by the delivery Post Office and on not knowing the complainant''s address, the delivery Post Office had to see the contents of the cover and returned the article to the address furnished in the forms i.e., to the Madras firm. The Department had taken all pain to trace the article. There is negligence on the part of the complainant. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The lower Forum accepted the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- with cost of Rs. 250/-. Hence the present appeal.

THE fact remains that the letter was not delivered. It is stated that it was not delivered because there was no such addressee. But, if there was no such address, nothing prevented the Department from returning the Registered letter to the sender. In that connection, they would say that the sender did not give his address in the cover and, therefore, it could not be delivered. This can be hardly accepted for the simple reason that when an article or a letter is sent by the Registered Post with acknowledgement due , the acknowledgement would naturally contain the sender''s name and address and without such name and address the letter will not be accepted for transmission. THErefore, even if there was no address given in the cover, they ought to have had address particular given in the acknowledgement card. THErefore, when they had the acknowledgement card which contained the address of the sender especially when service was not effected on the ground of no such address, then the letter along with the said acknowledgement ought to have been returned to the address given in the card with the endorsement on the cover stating that the addressee not known. THErefore, this contention as pointed out by the opposite party is without any merit. The complainant has returned a letter on 11.3.1995 for which a reply is only sent on 18.5.1995. There the definite stand taken is that the registered letter was returned to the sender with remarks "Addressee not known" on 16.2.1995 and that the actual date of delivery is not ready traceable. In the version it is stated that there was no such address. It is also stated that the letter could not be sent back to the sender because it did not contain the address. But in their earliest reply, they have stated that it was returned with remarks "addressee not known" on 16.2.1995 and the actual date of redelivery is not readily available. Again they have written to say that inquiry is under progress. But it is curious enough in the letter dated 31.10.1995, they have stated that an inquiry revealed that the registered letter was not received by the addressee. It is also stated that the addressee could not be located and it was returned to the sender and the sender might not have filled the Walajapet address in the envelop and hence the same was returned and delivered at Madras. Whereas a definite stand has been taken in the earliest letter dated 18.5.2003 that it was returned to the sender. In that letter, it was not stated that it could not be returned to the sender for want of address and it was sent to Madras. Again in the communication dated 3.8.1995, they have positively stated that one registered letter of Walajabad was received and delivered. Having taken such definite stand in their earliest letter and the letter dated 3.8.1995, to turn round and say that the letter did not contain the sender''s address and that it was sent to Anna Road Post Office at Chennai is really an improvement in the case. In their letter dated 29.11.1995, they have stated again that "under the above circumstances, R.L. 719 dated 11.2.1995 was returned and other letters though addressed wrongly were delivered correctly to the addressee at the correct address at Bramhapuram, Bangalore. This is for information". Thus we find only inconsistent version from the Department on such a small issue. The Postal Department has undertaken to deliver the registered letter and have collected necessary charges for sending the same from the sender. Having taken charges and accepted the letter they ought to have delivered the same and failure amounts to deficiency in service. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the Post Pffice is discharging statutory duties and the complainant is not a consumer. It may be that the postal department being part of the network under the control and superintendence of the Government, being a governmental department, is definitely discharging duties which are in a way regulated by the statute such as Indian Posts and Telegraphs Act. But on that account, the Post Office cannot claim any exemption. This is a case where no delivery has been effected at all. It is not a case of wrong delivery. It is a case of failure to deliver a registered letter. Therefore, in our view, the exemption cannot apply. The lethargy shown by the Department in responding to the request of the complainant only makes more the pronounced deficiency of service. Therefore, in that view of the matter we have to hold that there is no valid ground nor any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the lower Forum. Definitely in such context the complainant would fill in the character of a consumer as defined in the Act and as a consumer he has hired the services of the postal department for transmission of the letter and, therefore, the Department is squarely liable. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal dismissed.