V. KISHIN vs CUSTOMER CARE CENTRE

THE complainant''s case is that the letters, registered letters, money orders and other postal articles addressed to him from various places are not delivered to the complainant though they are properly and correctly addressed and as a result of the same, the complainant has been put to heavy financial loss and, therefore, the present complaint was laid by the complainant for recovery of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages and compensation.

THE opposites partis Postal Department contended that the complainant has not given particulars about the registered letters, letters and money orders alleged to have been addressed to him and not received by him and, therefore, without those particulars the opposite parties are not in a position to put forward their case. THE complainant is not a consumer. When it was brought to the notice of the opposite parties they immediately sent a reply to the complainant. THEre is no deficiency in service and the complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. The lower Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence, the present appeal.

Of course, the complainant has not stated the details of the registered letters, letters, money orders and postal articles addressed to him and which were not delivered. The complainant produced along with the complaint certain letters addressed to him in which we find endorsement stating that there is no such address. The letters were addressed by one Mohan Choudhary, a lawyer addressing it to the complainant and giving the address as 472, Kilpauk Garden Road, I Floor, Chennai. In Ex. A1 we find in the return it is stated there is no 472, Kilpauk Garden Road, I Floor. Ex. A2 is also a letter addressed to 472, Kilpauk Garden Road, I Floor. It has also been returned. So also Exs. A3, A4 and A5. The complainant has enclosed a letter from his Advocate conveying such information. This letter is also addressed to 472, Kilpauk Garden Road, I Floor, Chennai-10 but has been received by him. In the version, it is stated that an inquiry was conducted by the Field Officer in respect of the complaint given by the complainant on 15.5.1999 and the inquiry revealed that two registered letters received from M.M.D.A. Colony were received at Kilpauk on 3.5.1999. From the version, we find that the letters were returned by the postman on 3.5.1999, 4.5.1999 and 5.5.1999 with the remark ''door locked''. It is also stated that the postman returned the letter with the redirection addressed to 472, Kilpauk Garden Road, I floor and on that address, it was delivered on 6.5.1999. It is further stated that the complainant was not available during the visit of the postman and, therefore, they were delivered only on 6.5.1999. Thus, from a reading of the version, it is clear that it was not delivered by the Department. They are giving one reason or other. Of course, the law on this point is clear that only where there is a wilful and wanton act in not effecting delivery, then alone, it can be questioned. Otherwise, the bar under Section 6 of the Act would apply. Here, there is of course not alleged that there is wantonness or negligence but there appears to be some substance in the complaint made by the complainant. He has already made a complaint. Only after the complaints, certain actions were taken. Even then, it had been done only in a half-hearted manner. It is duty of the Postal Department who are doing public service to assure that postal letters and articles are delivered. For the common man is very much dependent upon only the service rendered by the Post and Telegraph Office. According to the complainant, since he has made some complaints against the postman, it is done wilfully though proof in the sense required before a Forum is not forthcoming. There appears to be some reason for the postman in not effecting delivery and it is perhaps because the complainant made complaints to the higher officials. Therefore, in such circumstances, though we confirm the verdict of the lower Forum and decide to dismiss the appeal, in the circumstances as we are of the view as there is some legitimate grievance, it will not be a fit case to award cost.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed but, in the circumstances without cost. The order passed by the lower Forum is confirmed. The opposite parties are directed however to ensure that registered letters, letters, money orders and postal articles addressed to the complainant are delivered without delay. Appeal dismissed.