RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2550 of 1997

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Meerut Cantt., Meerut.                                  ….Appellant.

Versus

Dilawar Singh s/o Shri Ranveer Singh,  

R/o 121/9-E, Pragati Nagar,

District, Meerut.                                  …….. .Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellant. 

Sri M.H. Khan for the respondent.

Date  17.6.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.11.1997, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Meerut in complaint case No.406 of 1997, the appellant Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut Cantt., Meerut has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.

          From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Shir Dilawar Singh deposited  

(2)

Postal Orders of 100 American Dollars in State Bank of India, Pine Shopping Centre, Meerut cantt., Meerut in his account no.2653 on 19.11.1996. It was sent to the Post Office, Meerut for encashment but the same was never credited in his account. Feeling aggrieved by this gross deficiency in service, complaint case was filed against the State Bank of India and the Post Office, Meetut Cantt.

The complaint was allowed on 22.11.1997 and the Post Office was directed to deposit the actual amount of the aforesaid Postal Orders in terms of Indian Currency as on 19.11.1996 with 12% interest from that date till its full and final payment. It also directed the appellant Post Office to pay a sum of Rs.500.00 as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.

          There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant Sri Dilawar Singh had deposited the aforesaid Postal Orders of 100 American Dollars in State Bank of India. Thus, he had a Consumer – Service Provider relationship with the Bank only. The Bank claims to have sent the aforesaid Postal Orders to Post Office, Meerut Cantt. for encashment. Hence, the Bank developed a Consumer – Service Provider relationship with the Post Office and in the instant matter, there has been no complaint by the Bank for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Post Office. Thus, the complaint itself was bad in the eye of law and was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

          From perusal of the Written Statement, it transpires

(3)

that it came to know for the first time that some American Postal Orders had been sent to the Post Office for encashment. The respondent/complainant has not given details of the same. Nothing has been mentioned as to how he procured them in India. There was no clearance letter, issued under the Conversion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). It was also submitted that Postal Administration of USA placed  restriction to conversion of American Postal Order in India. It has been submitted that, "The postal administration of USA has placed under restriction to discourage the Money order service to India. It was noticed that sometimes the customers purchased International U.S. Postal M.O. M.P.I. Forms, which does not bear any restrictions as these are intended for payment in 28 countries excluding India. Accordingly, a postal administration of USA has suggested that in case any such M.O. in terms of M.P.I. is received in India for payment, the same be refused payment and sent back to the Purchaser in USA, who can claim refund from the postal administration of USA. In the above circumstances, the US Postal M.O. M.P.I. Forms were not liable to be paid in India." The respondent/complainant has not even disclosed from where and which Post Office, he procured the aforesaid Postal Orders and how responsibility could be fixed on the Post Office for not encashing them without any complaint by the State Bank of India where he had deposited them for encashment.  The Forum below failed to consider this aspect of the matter and delivered the

(4)

judgment without considering the factum that there existed no Consumer – Service Provider relationship between him and the Post Office and therefore, no responsibility could be fastened on the Post Office under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is material irregularity and illegality in the order and as such it can not be allowed to sustain. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed.  

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 22.11.1997, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Meerut in complaint case No.406 of 1997 is set aside. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumars)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3