To
The President, District Forum, Pondicherry.
Subject:- RESUBMISSION OF MY COMPLAINT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT FORUM, PONDICHERRY.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS TO PROVE WHY MY CASE SHOULD BE HEARD AND WHY MY CASE IS VALID UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986 – FOR DEFICIENT SERVICES.
1. To State How This Complainant is a “Consumer” : The definition of the word “Consumer” is also stated as : A consumer is a person or organization who uses services or commodities. Here in this case I Jose Kamal Moraes am a India Citizen who is entitled to get my letters addressed to me. Hence I am a recipient of the services of the India Posts. It is not a private property of the post man or post master to stop the services to me by saying some excuses. This will mean discriminatory service practices in violation of my fundamental rights also. Hence this complainant states that I am a consumer.
The Consumer Protection Act states the same and is defined under section 2(I) (d), “consumer” means any person who- [avails of] any services for a consideration which has been promised or partly paid and partly promised, and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. .( Only relevant part quoted )
Here in this complaint I am a consumer who avails ( receiver) of the services from India posts, owned by the Govt of India, to receive the postal delivery services addressed to me. Hence being a receiver of the services I am a consumer as per the law.
For example: How Royal Mail Allows Claim Compensation for lost, damaged or delayed posts is quoted below:-
Claim compensation for lost, damaged or delayed post
You can claim compensation from Royal Mail if your post was lost, damaged or delayed.
Either the sender or the receiver can claim for compensation – you might need to contact each other to arrange getting the proof you need to claim.
2. (a) With reference to the orders in the following case :-
Kerala High Court
Post And Telegraph Department, … vs A. Sarada on 19 October, 2001
Author: R Babu
Bench: V M Kumar, R R Babu
JUDGMENT Rajendra Babu, J.
In Point number 7 states as follows:-
7. “ The High Court of Gujarat also has taken the view that ‘loss’ contemplated under Section 6 was loss by the State and it did not take in loss to the owner in Union of India v. M/s. New Vijay Weaving Works, (1974) 15 Guj LR 322. There the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court held that by the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, the department assumes the liability of a carrier and can be described as a statutory carrier and even as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, fraud and willful act of an officer of the post office does not earn exception contemplated by the section. It was further observed that if fraud and willful act or default cannot save an officer from liability arising from loss etc.. It is difficult to comprehend how such fraud or willful act or default can save the Government from a similar liability and Section 6 was intended to save the Government from the liability of a common carrier and nothing more can be read in the provisions of that section. A postal article is entrusted to the postal authorities for its safe carriage and delivery to the addressee, and not for its willful damage or destruction or removal. When a postal official willfully does anything which results in its loss or damage, he commits breach of statutory duty in discharge of his functions on behalf of the State and the State, being his employer, cannot avoid its responsibility for the willful wrong done by him to the members of the public. The loss, misdelivery, delay or damage cannot therefore be considered as those resulting from fraud or willful act or default of the postal officials dealing with a postal article. The immunity as per Section 6 of the Act is subject to the exception that it is not applicable in cases where such liability is undertaken in express terms by the Central Government as provided in the Act. So also no officers of the post office shall Incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless it was a case Involving the result caused by the fraud or willful act or default. That means the liability of the Central Government is confined to statutory liability expressly undertaken under the provisions of the liability of the postal employees so confined to cases where the loss, delay, misdelivery or damage was the result caused fraudulently or by willful act or default. The postal department in fact is liable for the tortious acts of its officials committed during the course of their duty with regard to the postal articles entrusted to their care.“
(b) In Point number 8 of this order states as follows:-
8. In Union of India v. Firm Ram Gopal Hukam Chand, AIR 1960 All 672 the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had considered the scope of Section 6 of the Post Office Act and held that Section 6 of the Post Office Act providing that Government shall not be liable for the loss, damage, non delivery or misdelivery of postal articles entrusted to its charge was intended by the legislature to serve as shield for the protection of the post office and its officials in the legitimate discharge of their functions, but the shield cannot be converted into a weapon of Inequity in the hands of a Government Department enjoying a monopoly of an essential service Section 6 does not empower the post office or its officials to do what they like with the articles entrusted to their care or commit wrongful acts against the owners of those articles. There it was held that the post office was liable to the sender for the value of the article which was entrusted to its care and in respect of which it cannot claim exemption under Section 6.
(c) In Point number 9 of this order states as follows:
By virtue of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act the Department has the liability of a statutory carrier and it was not exercising any sovereign functions as it was enjoined In England. The jural relationship between the sender and the post office in respect of the carriage of goods sent by the sender under VPP system was held by the Supreme Court to be that of an agent of the sender for the recovery of the price and if it fails to recover the price and deliver the goods, it is liable for damages to the sender. Commr. of Income-tax, Delhi v. P. M. Rathod and Co., AIR 1959 SC 1394. A similar approach was taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Amar Singh. (1960) 2 SCR 75 : (AIR 1960 SC 233). But a different view was taken by the Supreme Court In Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 SC 431. Anyway we are not concerned with the above question in the present case. By Section 6 of the Act the Government is saved of the liability of a common carrier and it did not confer or empower the postal authorities to deal with the article entrusted in any manner they like. When a postal official willfully or fraudulently does anything which results in the loss or damage, he commits breach of a statutory duty in the discharge of his unction on behalf of the State, The State, being the employer, cannot avoid its responsibility for the willful wrong done by the employee to the members of the public.
(d) In the following news reports:
Postal Department directed to pay compensation for deficiency in service
www.thehindu.com/…/postal- department…deficiency…service/article193…
Oct 25, 2007 – K. T. Sangameswaran It was “a willful default in not delivering the
article as per rules”
(e) Postal department fined for deficiency of service – Times of India
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Mar 13, 2014 – But in present case it was done. Therefore postal department was responsible for the delay which amounted to deficiency of services.
(f) For misplacing package, India Post asked to pay Rs 15,000 as …
indianexpress.com › cities › chandigarh
Mar 23, 2015 – Rather, they simply took shelter under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. This act clearly points towards deficiency in service on the …
Hence The Postal Service under Department of Posts is fully within the ambit of Service Provider as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Only based on the hearing, examination of evidences the reasons for this deficiency of service /non delivery of my letters under bribe, influence, willful act and those concerned can be identified and reasons ascertained with evidences from the opposite party and action initiated accordingly. If it is a willful fraudulent act by the officials to prevent the justice system from working then the Consumer Court has powers to take up this case Suo Moto also , if it is a criminal offence then a criminal case will be filed against them in addition to this case and cased moved for their conviction. In that case the compensation will be sought from the officials who committed this illegal act and not from the Govt of India. Govt of India is not responsible for this breach of services done by a few postal department employees under bribe and influence. In that case the concerned officials are responsible. Hence the facts will emerge only if a hearing and examination of evidences is done to derive the facts and truths.
The context of my case is very different from the other cases pointed out as reasons for returning my complaint. It is for the opposite parties to present the copies of the Judgments of the Hon. Supreme Court of India Reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 431 and the order of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2015(2) CPR 308(NC) and prove that the context/ subject of my case is the same as in this cases and hence they can be exempted from the losses I incurred due to non delivery of my posts.
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 nowhere mentions in the law that the postal department is exempted if they give deficient services under bribe or influence or if some of the officials do some acts in violation of the laws.
In my case the reasons for not delivering my letters to me even after I gave standing instructions proves a bigger crime and breach of services by some officials concerned. Hence before ascertaining the truth through hearing and examination of evidences a Judgment cannot be made.
If this case has a possibility to bring an end to compromised postal services due to bribe and influence in postal department and an end to this big loop hole invented by the postal department officials in Saram Post Office to stop the citizens letters because of an excuse that they are at work place and not at home then this case can benefit several lakhs of working employees receive their letters unhindered even if there is political enmity, family hostilities, not in home due to professional travel, work etc and hence can become a land mark judgment paving the way for better services by the postal department to the citizens of this nation.
Hence I pray that a hearing be given to this complainant and to the opposite parties urgently to ascertain the facts/truth as to if it is a breach of service under bribe and influence by some postal dept staffs or a criminal act or both so that needful action can be taken by this court for me to get Justice or if I should move to the next level/courts to get justice will be evident after the hearings.
Date: 05-MAY-2016. Place: Pondicherry
Jose Kamal Moraes