Delivery of a postal article to a co-occupant family member at the recorded address, in the absence of the addressee, does not constitute deficiency in service or wilful default under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, unless fraud or mala fide intent is proven.

ORDER

1. Present appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant/complainant assails Order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Circuit Bench Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, whereby the complaint was dismissed.

Appellant and respondents are hereinafter referred to as complainant/opposite parties, as appearing in the complaint for convenience.

2. In brief, complainant being registered with the Tamil Nadu Employment Office was forwarded an interview call letter on 23.11.2013 through registered post at his permanent address at Sankaralingapuram, Kovilpatty. The said letter was delivered by OP-3 postman (Sivamurugesan) to OP-4 (K. Shanthi), who is wife of the brother of the complainant. Complainant further claims that he did not have cordial relations with his sister-in-law (OP-4). Further, because of the wrong delivery of letter by OP-3 to OP-4, letter was omitted to be given by OP-4 to the complainant. Consequently, complainant failed to appear for the interview and lost an opportunity of getting employment with TANGEDCO. Complaint was lodged by the complainant with the local police station which was closed as ‘action dropped’. Complainant further averred that a letter written by OP-2 (Senior Superintendent of Post Offices) dated 16.01.2014 revealed that the post was wrongly delivered to OP-4 and suitable disciplinary action would be taken against the official concerned.

3. In the afore-said background, complainant filed a complaint before learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai for deficiency in service and sought compensation of proposed monthly salary @ Rs.25,000/- per month along with enhancement of future income, compensation for mental agony and costs.

4. Complaint was opposed on behalf of OP-1 (Post-Master General, India Post, Anna Salai, Chennai) claiming that the ‘permanent address’ and the ‘residential address’ of the complainant are not one and the same. Further complainant did not give any instructions regarding change of his residence from permanent address at 20-J, Sankaralingapuram, to 703-I/1, Muthunagar, Kovilpatty to the concerned post office. The said permanent address (farm house) is stated to be jointly belonging to the complainant along with his brother as admitted by him. OP-1 further placed reliance upon OP guide Part-I Clause 72, whereby instructions had been provided in the eventuality of change of address, as under:-

“Instruction regarding change of residence ;- (1) Persons changing their address should furnish the post-office both at the place which they are leaving and at the place in which they are going with written instructions regarding disposal of the article (including money orders) received to their address. The instruction must be simple and direct, and must sate whether they are intended to apply to all postal articles, and whether the postal articles referred to are postal articles address to the person giving the instruction only, or also to members of his family of household. Complicated or conditional instructions or anything in nature of a tour programme will not be attended to".

The letter addressed to complainant is further stated to have been delivered by OP-3 to OP-4, since the complainant was unavailable at the address recorded on the letter at relevant time and OP-4 informed OP-3 that the letter would be delivered to the complainant, who is her brother-in-law. Also, personal enmity, if any, between the complainant