1

Date of Filing: 25-03-2022

Date of Order: 06-06-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION – II, HYDERABAD

Present

SRI VAKKANTI NARASIMHA RAO ... PRESIDENT

SRI P.V.T.R JAWAHAR BABU … MEMBER
SMT. MADHAVI SASANAKOTA…. MEMBER

Tuesday, the 06th day of June, 2023

Consumer Case No.190/2022
BETWEEN:
R.Sridhar, S/o Rv Shankar Rao.Aged:47 years, Occ: Consultant,
Pranav Praneeth Orchids, Vill no.30, Bowram pet, Hyderabad
500043.

…Complainant
AND
Indian Postal Service Chief Postmaster General, O/o Postmaster
General,Telangana Circle Hyderabad Region, Dak Sadan, Abids,
Hyderabad.

…. Opposite Party

This complaint is coming before us on this the 17th day of April,

2023 in the presence of complainant as a party in person, and Sri
P. Laxminarayana, Public Relation Inspector (Postal), appeared for
the opposite party and on perusal of material papers available on
record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the
Commission passed the following:

ORDER
(BY SRI VAKKANTI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT ON
BEHALF OF THE BENCH)
This complaint is filed on 25th March, 2022 vide SR No. 978 by the
complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to:-
1. Pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) towards
loss of material – Defective Goods.
 2

2. Pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) towards

deficiency of service.
3. Pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) towards time
and money spent by the complainant on visiting the post
offices for getting the issue to be resolved.
4. Pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) towards
costs of the litigation.

1. The brief allegations of the complaint are that the cousin of the
complainant has sent a registered Parcel Consignment No.
CK671716055IN having New Clothes from Bangalore to his
Residence in Hyderabad. The parcel weight at the source Postal
Office was 11.36 Kgs. The complainant did not receive the parcel
even after 5 days for which he inquired with the local Post Office
about the delay.
2. Later the postman gave a Parcel on January 31 2022 and to his
surprise the package delivered to the complainant was not of him
as it was around 4 to 5 Kgs only. On getting suspicious and when
the complainant was checking the weight, Postman had left in
hurry leaving the parcel with the complainant. Couple of days
later, the postman has come again for which the complainant had
said that the parcel as delivered prior to couple of days was not of
him as it does not have correct consignment number and also
there is mismatch of weight for that he advised the complainant to
raise a complaint online and on 31st January, 2022 the
complainant lodged an online complaint with complaint number
2001504363. Despite the complaint raised on 31st January, 2022,
the issue has not resolved till date but to his surprise and shock,
the online status of the parcel was updated as delivered on 14th
February, 2022, 14 days after raised complaint by the
complainant.
3. Subsequently, the complainant raised complaint in Administrative
Reforms and public Grievances Portal from Government of India,
but the case was closed on 15th March, 2022 with following
remarks.
“Sir/Madam.
 3

With reference to your CPGRAMs grievance, it is to inform you that

the articles was received in good condition on 27th January, 2022
AIR Force Academy Post Office and no objection was raised by the
address at the time of delivery on 29.01.2022”.
4. The above remarks show that the parcel was delivered to us on 1st
January, 2022, whereas the Tracking of consignment shows that
the delivery was done on 14th February, 2022.
5. The sequence of events show that the contents of the package i.e.
New Clothes stolen and few clothes have been replaced. This is
done willfully for which the complainant prayed to direct the IPO
Hyderabad to compensate for the loss of material and the pain he
had undergone about the stolen parcel as claimed hereinabove.
6. The opposite party filed written version by denying the allegations
made under the complaint. Consignment number CK671716055IN
booked on 21.01.2022 at Krishnarajapuram Sub-Post Office,
Karnataka Circle. The parcel weight at the source post office was
11365 grams. The detailed point to point article transmission
status is furnished hereunder. The contention of the complainant
is that he has not received correct consignment number. This was
not intimated to this opposite party department previously either
in CRM complaint No. 2001504363 or PG Portal complaint No.
DPOST/E/2022/04461 and the complainant should have
mentioned consignment number which he has to be received.
7. The allegation made by the complainant is not correct as this
Department scans the consignment physically at each stage and it
can be seen in the enclosed consignment tracking status enclosed
in Annexure-1 and the same consignment number as shown in the
booking receipt which was uploaded by the petitioner CRM
complaint No. 2001504363 was only delivered. The recipient
should have refused the parcel at the time of delivery in case of
appearance of abstraction.
8. CRM complaint No. 2001504363 was raised on 31.01.2022 and
was settled on 28.03.2022 with remarks given by the sub-
postmaster, Air Force Academy Sub-Post Office that “the article
was received in good condition on 27.01.2022 and no adverse
remarks were noted at the time of delivery to addressee on
 4

29.01.2022”. Online updation of the article done in SAP module

(Departmental Application) on 14.02.2022 which is for the
confirmation of the delivery but the correct date of delivery is on
29.01.2022 as per delivery slip.
9. CPGRAMS/ PG Portal complaint No. DPOST/E/2022/04461
raised on 07.02.2022 is solved on 15.03.2022 with point to point
communication done by each office from source to destination and
replies received from each office is enclosed and closed with
remarks “It is to inform you that the article was received in good
condition on 27.01.2022 at Air Force Academy Post Office and no
objection was raised by the addressee at the time of deliver on
29.01.2022”.
10. As per Web tracking of consignment the article was delivered
on 14.02.2022 is a delayed updation in the SAP module
(Departmental application) by the Sub-Postmaster, Air Force
Academy Sub-Office, as the Bowrampet Branch Post office works
in Manual mode.
In view of this, the delivery slip is the Proof of actual deliver in this
case and not the tracking report.
11. The compensation guidelines as per the Post Office Guide
Part-1, clause 170 are attached herewith for perusal. As per clause
170 of PO Guide Part 1, the compensation can be paid to the
sender or at this request to the addressee solely as an act of grace,
and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation up to a
limit of Rs. 50/- (which is revised to Rs. 100/-) for the loss of any
inland letter, packet or parcel or its contents or for any damage
caused to it in course of transmission by post, subject to the
mentioned conditions. The sender should have insured the parcel
for the worth of item being posted, as insurance covers all risks in
course of transmission by post.
12. In enquiry, the complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit by
examining himself as PW-1 by reiterating the contentions of the
complaint and Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-6 marked on his behalf.
13. No evidence filed by the Opposite party. Despite no evidence
affidavit filed for opposite party, the documents attached with their
 5

Written Version is taken on record and marked as Ex. B-1 to Ex.

B-5.
14. Written arguments of the complainant are filed. No written
arguments filed for opposite party. Heard for the complainant and
deemed to be heard for the opposite party. On perusal of the
pleadings and counter pleading and on scrutiny of the documents
of both the parties, the points to be answered for determination
are: -
1. Whether any deficiency of service is made-out against the
opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought?
3. To What relief?

POINT NO. 1 AND 2:-

1. It is not in dispute that the Consignment number

CK671716055IN booked on 21.01.2022 by the cousin of the
complainant at Krishnarajapuram Sub-Post Office, Karnataka
Circle.
2. The parcel weight at the source post office was 11365 grams
that should be delivered at Residence in Hyderabad at
complainant address.
3. Ex. A-1 is the List of dates and Events which was not denied or
disputed by the opposite parties for which the contention of the
complainant are that the signature under Ex. B-4 in Sl. No. 18
of Delivery Menifest of Airforce Academy S.O – 500043 is not of
him or his wife, which was not even made any attempt to deny
or dispute the same by the opposite party.
4. The fraud or un-fair trade practice committed either of by the
opposite party or of its employees has been established on
comparing the signature of the complainant with the complaint
and Signature under Ex. B-4 with a naked eye.
5. On perusal of complaint lodged under Ex. A-3, the reply given
under Ex. B-5 dated: 15.03.2022 by closing complaint stating
that “It is to inform you that the article was received in Good
condition on 27.01.2022 at Air Force Academy Post Office and
no objection was raised by the addressee at the time of delivery
on 29.01.2022. But the opposite party failed to file any such “no
 6

objection” from the addressee as claimed which alleged to be

given by the complainant. So the contentions under the
statement under Ex. B-5 have no relevancy at all and not at all
binding on the complainant unless the opposite party files “No
Objection” which alleged to be issued by the complainant.
6. Admittedly the complainant failed to prove that what are the
items under the parcel in question as well as its costs which
alleged to be lost but establishes the negligent acts upon the
part of the opposite parties in delivering the parcel in-tact and
proper condition for which those negligent acts upon the part of
the opposite party is amounts to deficiency of service that leads
to adoption of un-fair trade practice for which we answered
these points accordingly in favour of the complainant.

POINT NO. 3:-

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the
opposite party to:-
1. Pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) towards
compensation to the complainant for its acts of deficiency of
service and un-fair trade practice.
2. Pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) towards costs
of the litigation.
3. Rests of the claims under the complaint is dismissed.
4. Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of
this order.

 Applications pending if any, stand disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid order.
 A copy of this judgment be provided to all parties free of cost
as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
 The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of this
commission for the perusal of the parties.
 File be consigned to record room along with copy of this
judgment.
 7

Dictated to Stenographer, Typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by us in the open Commission today the 06th
day of June, 2023.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Complainant:-

Mr. R.Sridhar (PW1)
Witnesses examined for Opposite party:-
Evidence affidavit not filed
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A1: is the copy of list of dates and events.
Ex.A2: is the copy of Evidences. Dated: 21.01.2022.
Ex.A3: is the copy of CPGRAMs, details for registration number:
DPOST/E/2022/04461.
Ex.A4: is the copy of Department of Post India Delivery Manifest of
Airforce Academy , issue dated: jan 27th ,2022.
Ex.A5: is the copy of Signatures.
Ex.A6: is the copy of Consignment tracking status as per SAP .
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party:-
Ex.B1: is the copy of Consignment tracking status as per SAP
Module.
Ex.B2: is the copy of Postal Receipt.
Ex.B3: is the copy of Routing Tracking.
Ex.B4: is the copy of Department of Post India Delivery Manifest of
Airforce Academy S.O-500043.
Ex.B5: is the copy of Details of registration number:
Dpost/e/2022/04461.

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT