POSTMASTER WALAJAPET POST OFFICE Vs. N DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.