POSTMASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE Vs. Y K SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is a holder of credit card issued by the Central Bank of India. Therefore, for the amounts due on purchase on the credit card, a sum of Rs. 500/ - was due and payable, for which the complainant obtained a demand draft on State Bank of India, Devakottai Branch and sent it by registered post to the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Bombay. A sum of Rs. 8/ - was collected from him towards postal charges. But the letter/draft did not reach the addressee. When the complainant brought it to the notice of the opposite party, they also failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the same. On 28.11.1994, when the complainant returned home in the evening, he found an acknowledgement card dropped at his house. There was a seal of Devakottai Post Office dated 17.8.1994 on it. But, there was no signature of the addressee or a rubber stamp of the addressee. Since the amount due and payable towards credit card was not received in time by the addressee, the complainant has been put to much hardship. Thus, there is deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

(2.) THE opposite party contended as follows: The registered letter booked on 12.7.1994 has been delivered on 16.7.1994. The postal officials at Nariman Point Post Office, Bombay confirmed the same. But the opposite party could not get the details of the delivery of the said letter. They were not able to trace the same. There was no default on the part of the Postal Department. Since it is stated that it was a draft obtained on State Bank of India payable to Central Bank of India, there is no possibility of draft having been misused. Therefore, the complainant had not been put to any loss. Further, there is no liability on the part of the opposite party since they are exempted from the same under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Hence, the opposite party prays that this complaint may be dismissed with costs.

(3.) ON 12.7.1994 the complainant had obtained the draft and it has been booked by way of registered post with acknowledgement due as is seen from Ex. A1. Ex. A4 is the letter from the Central Bank of India dated 16.11.1994 stating that they have not received the same. The State Bank of India Branch at Devakottai has also sent a telegram to their counter part in Bombay on 20.10.1994 under original of Ex. A7. The complainant has also addressed a letter to the State Bank of India on 18.11.1994 and has asked for a draft. A duplicate draft was given as is seen from the certificate issued by the State Bank of India under Ex. A 12. In their version, the opposite party has stated that they have no information as to what happened thereafter. Thus, there is a failure on the part of the opposite party to deliver a registered letter to the addressee. It definitely amounts to deficiency in service.