KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.362/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 21/10/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No. 285/2013  dt  13/2/2015 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Chief Postmaster General,

 Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Postal Division, Changanassery.            

3.  The Postmaster, Changanassery.

(By  Authorised Representative - Sandeep R.P)                    

                                    Vs

RESPONDENT:

            John Joseph,

Thekkechira House,  Mattom,

Changanassery,  Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :   MEMBER

          Appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.285/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam who preferred this appeal.

          2.  It is the case of the complainant that the complainant sent his daughter’s Police Clearance Certificate and his son-in-law’s permanent Residence Certificate along with Police Clearance Certificate through speed post from Changanassery Post Office to his son-in-law’s address at Canada.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the Speed Post was not received and the Speed Post lost in transit.  The  complainant lodged a complaint vide e-mail on 18/11/2010 and there had no response from the opposite parties.  Several communications addressed to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Overseas/Indian Affairs also found no response.  The complainant caused a Lawyer’s Notice dated 01/8/2011 seeking compensation for the loss of documents.  Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party issued a letter dated 2/9/2011 along with a claim form to be filled in by the complainant.  On 20/3/2012 a letter was received from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,301/- for the loss of Speed Post.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had to spend Rs.1,20,000/- for obtaining the Police Clearance Certificate for his daughter and his son-in-law.  The certificate was inevitable for obtaining permanent residential status.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice.  The complaint is filed for getting the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid from the opposite parties jointly and severally along with  interest @ 12% from 1/11/2010 and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/-as cost of proceedings.

          3.  In the version filed by opposite parties it is admitted that the complainant booked one speed post article from Changanassery Post Office to be sent to the address of his son-in-law in Canada on 01/10/2010.  It is also admitted that a complaint was received on 18/11/2010 from the complainant.  It is contended that the speed post item received by SPC Mumbai International (Exchange Office) and sent to Canada on 3/11/2010.  The online query with Canada by Mumbai International replied that “Item in Transit”.  The copy of enquiry papers from Canada by SPC, Mumbai  International was supplied to the complainant.  As no further information was received from SPC, Mumbai International regarding the final delivery of speed post article the opposite parties offered the option for giving compensation which was informed to the complainant and forwarded the claim paper on 2/9/2011 and reminded on 18/12/2011.  The contention of the opposite party is that in case of loss of International Speed Post article the compensation fixed is 30 SDR per item.  The effective rate of SDR as on 20/3/2013 was 76.7 and the compensation sanctioned for Rs.2,301/- (76.7 x 30) which was issued on 20/3/2012.  The complainant has no case that the opposite party had not sent the speed post to Canada.  As per statutory rules the parties are not entitled for any more compensation.  It is also contended that there is no allegation against