IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI. Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

F.A.No.148/2018

(Against the order made in C.C.No.119/2016 dated 13.06.2017 on the file of the District Forum, Tirunelveli.)

FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2022

1. The Post Master,
O/o Tirunelveli Head Office,
Tirunelveli -1. 1st Appellant/1st Opposite Party

2. Multi Purpose Counter Officer,
Counter No:15,
O/o Tirunelveli Head Office,
Tirunelveli – 1. 2nd Appellant/2nd Opposite Party

3. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Madurai Head Office,
Madurai South Taluk of Madurai District,
Madurai – 625 001. 3rd Appellant/3rd Opposite Party

-Vs-

A.Brammanayagam @ Bramma,
461E, V.O.C.Nagar,
D Colony,
V.M.Chatram,
Tirunelveli-1. Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants-1 to 3/Opp.parties 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Ravindran, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : In-Person.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 11.04.2022 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.119/2016, dated
13.06.2017, allowing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Tirunelveli.
3. The opposite parties suffering by an order, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.6075/- (Rs.75/- towards balance amount payable to the complainant, and to pay Rs.4000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs) to the complainant in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), has preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The brief facts of the complaint stated before the District Forum is as follows:- The complainant on 27.08.2016 went to the post office at Tirunelveli for sending a registered post to Chennai. The 2nd opposite party was in-charge of the counter No.15 and the officer requested the complainant to pay Rs.25/- towards charge for the registered post. The complainant paid Rs.100/- and it was received by the officer in the counter then, the counter in-charge told the complainant that there was no change for giving the balance amount to the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.25/- so that Rs.100/- which was already paid by the complainant would be refunded. For which the complainant replied that he did not have any further amount and asked the 2nd opposite party to give the balance for which the 2nd opposite party replied in a disrespectful manner and it causes mental agony to the complainant. Then he wanted to make a complaint to the 1st opposite party the Postmaster in-charge of the post office. The 1st opposite party was very reluctant to hear the complaint and subsequently handed over the complaint register. The complainant made a complaint in the register also. Inspite of that the balance amount of Rs.75/-was not returned so far. The complainant sent a pre suit notice to the opposite parties for which also no reply. Hence he preferred the complaint.
5. The opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared through counsel they failed to submit any written version or proof affidavit to support their case.
6. The District Forum on perusing the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and came to a conclusion that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed all the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the above said amounts to the complainant.
7. Being aggrieved against that order the opposite parties challenged it by filing this appeal stating as follows: that order of the District Forum is against the law and it is improper. It is not correct to allege that balance amount was not tendered to the complainant. Actually opposite parties 1 & 2 tried to hand over the balance but the complainant failed to receive the same. Likewise notice sent by the complainant was received by the opposite parties on 01.09.2016. But, before sending the reply the complainant has been preferred by him before the District Forum.
8. Point for consideration is:
Whether the order passed by the Learned District Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.119/2016 dated 13.06.2017 is sustainable under law or not?
9. Point: It is the case of the complainant before the District Forum that he went to book a registered post on 27.08.2016 for which he paid Rs.100/- to the counter in-charge. But, the counter in-charge failed to repay the balance amount and on the other hand she replied in a disrespectful manner. It is his further allegations that the counter in-charge opposite party-2 asked the complainant to buy Kaasi Theertham in lieu of balance amount.
10. It is true that the opposite parties were set ex-parte before the District Forum and the written version was not at all submitted to the District Forum. However, before this Commission the opposite parties in their appeal categorically stated and admitted the above registration of post by the complainant and it is also admitted by them that Rs.100/- was paid by the complainant and balance amount of
Rs.75/- is still with them. It is their case that they tried to pay the complainant Rs.75/- which was refused by him. Furthermore they stated that they did not ask the complainant to buy Kaasi Theertham since that scheme was not at all introduced in the post office at the time. Leaving aside the above controversy, whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 requested the complainant to buy Kaasi Theertham or not, it is necessary to consider whether the other allegations constitute deficiency of service or not? As already stated, it is an admitted fact that the complainant on 27.08.2016 registered a post through opposite party- 2 and Ex.A1 is the receipt given by opposite party-2 proves the above facts.
11. It is pertinent to note that the right of the complainant as a customer to lodge the complainant is not at all disputed before this Commission. Admittedly the complainant was charged for sending registered post by the opposite parties and hence he is a customer and there is no doubt what so ever arose for consideration. Apart from that the opposite parties clearly admitted that they received Rs.100/- instead of Rs.25/- and they did not have enough change to pay the balance amount of Rs.75/- at the time. This Commission visualizes the above said incident. The incident atleast took place for nearly five minutes and the complainant also took effort to register his complaint, in the complaint register maintained by opposite party-1 the Postmaster in-charge of the post office. The above register extract is marked as Ex.A4. In the above registration of complaint the Postmaster made an endorsement that copy to SPOS sent on 27.08.2016 itself and PMG,SR Madurai also made an endorsement that he has seen the above registered complaint on
11.11.2016. The complaint was presented before the District Forum only on 22.03.2017. Hence after registering a complaint, in the complaint register which was took note of concerned Higher Officials no effort has been taken to rectify the complaint or to redress the grievance of the complainant.
12. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the public servant. The public as well as this commission very well aware that public servants facing the customers throughout a day cannot maintain their cool temperament all the time and they cannot be expected to serve with a pleasing and smiling attitude as they are after all human beings. But, it is possible; and desirable too. Service implies good service, and good service resulted with consumer’s satisfaction. So, if the persons at the counter treated the complainant in a respectful and courtesy manner this incident would have been avoided.
13. It is the duty of the 2nd opposite party at the counter in-charge to return the balance amount. When that was not done then it amounts to deficiency of service. The version that the complainant refused to accept the balance amount after sometime is also un-acceptable to this Commission. If it is true then the matter can be settled amicably by the Postmaster himself when it was brought to his notice. Atleast when the complainant made a written complaint in the register note on the same day, an endorsement proving the refusal by the complainant ought to have been made to the effect. As there is no mentioning of follow-up action of opposite parties in this regard, clearly proved the case of the complainant.
14. The learned District Forum rightly appreciated all those facts and correctly arrived a conclusion directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.6075/- (Rs.75/-towards balance amount payable to the complainant and to pay Rs.4000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs) to the complainant. However, this Commission clarified that the above amount is to be initially paid by the postal department and it should be recovered from concerned Postmaster and Counter in-charge at the time of incident from their salary. Therefore the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable under law and answered accordingly.
15. In the result,
(i) the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the learned District Forum, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.119/2016, dated 13.06.2017 and,
(ii) the opposite parties are addressed in their official capacity and the present officials are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount on behalf of Postal Department and the department may recover the amount from the concerned Postmaster and Counter in-charge at the time of incident from their salary.
(iii) In addition the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay additional cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/complainant in this appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of April 2022.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

You may also like...