THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P No.1874 of 2008 Order ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26-10-207 passed in FA No.640 of 2007 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of A.P. against the order dated 14-3-2007 in C.C.No.677 of 2006 on the file of the DCF-I, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal, and as an error apparent on the face of the record was committed and also being violative of law, rules and regulations governing the Postal articles. The facts in brief are that the respondent-complainant is a practicing advocate and he sent up a letter by registered post, addressed to “The Assistant Engineer, A.P. State Electricity Board, Mamidipally, Hyderabad 5000 005”, which address according to the petitioners’ is incomplete and not specific for effecting delivery of the said registered letter. According to the petitioners-department there are 14 Assistant Engineers working at Maidipally, and that the A.P. State Electricity Board has been split into three corporations viz (1) AP Genco (2) AP Transco and (3) AP Discom (Distribution ) and that thee are 13 Assistant Engineers working at A.P. Transco Office and one AE at APCPDC Ltd at Mamidipally. It is further stated that a registered letter with acknowledgment due must be delivered only to the addressee and here the sender of the registered letter is an advocate and there was no specific address as to which Assistant Engineer he really intended that his communication should be delivered, instead of vaguely writing the address as Assistant Engineer, Mamidipally, Hyderabad, 500 005, and despite such glaring deficiency on the part of the respondent-complainant, the Postman of the department made continuous efforts for 7 days to deliver the registered letter but in vain as no Assistant Engineer was prepared to accept the registered letter since it was sent by an Advocate and also in view of the incomplete address on the cover. Hence, the postal department was left with no other alternative but to return the registered letter to the respondent-complainant which was received by him on 11-7- 2006 with endorsement of the Postman “no such addressee return to sender”. Aggrieved by the action of the Postal Department the respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, Hyderabad and the District Consumer Forum on adjudication of the matter allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation, and Rs.1000/- towards registered post charges and costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the Postal Department approached the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in FA No.640 of 2007 and the State Consumer Commission modified the compensation amount from Rs.5000/- to Rs.4000/- while confirming the rest of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-complainant’s casual approach in writing the address which is inaccurate and incomplete is only to make out a case of ‘deficiency’ for wrongful gain from the public exchequer since the respondent-complainant has been filing case after case against the Government of India departments i.e. Railways, Postal and Telecommunications and the District Consumer Forum erred in aiding the complainant in achieving his objective without appreciating the true facts and the legal position. It is further contended that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, 1898, the claim of the complainant for compensation against the postal department is not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that on an earlier occasion the Electricity Department has received the registered cover and that the second letter addressed by the complainant to the same address by the registered post was retuned and thus there was deficiency in the service on the part of the department and therefore no interference is warranted in the impugned order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. M.K. GUPTA ( (1) 1991 (1) SCC 243 ), C.V. RATNAM v. UNION OF INDIA ( (2) 2001 (6) ALD 35 ), I. BALAMANI v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, HYD ( (3) 2008 (4) ALD 401 ), GAJULA RAMA RAO v. THONDAMANATI SUBBARAYA ( (4) 2003(4) ALT 740 (DB). While considering the purport and object of the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court in M.K. GUPTA’ s case ( 1 supra) held that the importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘ a network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of the public bodies which are degenerating to store house of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. It has further been held by the Supreme Court that the Act aims to protect the economic interest of a consumer as understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in the larger sense of users of services. In Gajula Rama Rao’s case ( 4 supra ) registered notices taken out by the counsel for the appellants were returned with an endorsement that the house was locked for 10 days, hence returned. The Court ordered that the endorsements like addressee not found, party refused, addressee not in the village, no such addressee and incorrect address should be supported by reasons and especially when the party refuses the letter, he could get an endorsement at least from two mediators preferably, neighbours with regard to refusal of letters. It was also observed by the Division Bench of this Court that if any such endorsements are found, without proper explanation, the postmaster concerned shall also be made responsible and proper action has to be taken against him. Here in the instant case the factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. The complainant has addressed a letter to the Assistant Engineer, A.P. Electricity, Mamidipally, Hyderabad and the said letter was not delivered to the addressee. Even though there are 14 assistant Engineers working at the same address under three corporations i.e. A.P.Genco, A.P.Trnasco and AP Discom, the registered cover was not served on the Assistant Engineer and as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Gajula Rama Rao’s case, the endorsements like addressee not found, no such address should be supported by reasons and in case the party refuses the letter, he could get an endorsement at least from two mediators. Such a course was not followed and added to that on an earlier occasion a letter was served on the Assistant Engineer at the very same address. When extra charges are collected by the department, for registered post with acknowledgment due, proper caution should have been taken in delivery otherwise distinction between ordinary post and registered post would stand obliterated. In these circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the courts below in not delivering the registered letter to the concerned address amounts to deficiency in service and to this effect the finding does not require any interference by this Court. However, while awarding damages, a proper assessment should be made. Where no such specific plea of damage is pleaded or proven, a reasonable amount representing the general damages should be imposed. Taking all these factors, we consider it appropriate to modify the award of Rs.4,000/- ordered by the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, to that of Rs.2,500/-. The rest of the order remains. In the result, the Writ Petition is meritless and is dismissed. ___________________ GM, J ______________ NRR, J Kk dt THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P No.1874 of 2008 PD Judgment THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P No.1874 of 2008