Haryana

StateCommission

A/1162/2016

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DILWAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.BABBAR

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                     First Appeal No  :   1162 of 2016 & 180 of 2017

Date of Institution:  05.12.2016 & 16.02.2017

                                     Date of Decision:   22.08.2017

 

 

Appeal No.1162 of 2016

 

 

 

Post Office Hisar, Department of Post, Postal Department, Postal Division, Hisar through its Superintendent.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Dilwan Singh, son of Sh. Ramanand, resident of Street No.2, Ward No.6, Bharat Nagar, District Hisar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

Appeal No.180 of 2017

 

 

Dilwan Singh, son of Sh. Ramanand, resident of Street No.2, Ward No.6, Bharat Nagar, District Hisar.

Appellant -Complainant

Versus

 

Post Office Hisar, Department of Post, Postal Department, Postal Division, Hisar through its Superintendent.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

Argued by: Shri G.C. Babbar, Advocate for Post Office

                   Shri Jagdev Singh Thind, Advocate for Dilwan Singh-complainant

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.1162 of 2016 filed by Post Office, Hisar-opposite party and 180 of 2017 filed by Dilwan Singh-complainant because they have arisen out of common order dated October 31^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.180 of 2014. 

2.      The complainant applied for the post of Chauffeur/Despatch Rider in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, New Delhi.  The Registrar General, High Court sent a letter dated September 20^th, 2012 through speed post vide EMS No.ED739250238IN to the complainant asking him to submit the attested copy of experience certificate within 15 days of dispatch of letter but the complainant received the letter on October 04^th, 2012.  The complainant managed to submit the documents.  Thereafter, another letter was sent by the Registrar General, High Court vide EMS No.ED739250207IN but the same was not received by the complainant within time. Another letter dated November 26^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-16) vide EMS No.754095062IN was sent to the complainant requiring him to appear for the driving skill test on December 11^th, 2012 at 8.30 a.m but the post office delivered the letter on December 14^th, 2012.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The District Forum vide impugned order directed the Post Office to pay Rs.30,000/-  to the complainant.   

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that he does not contest the case qua Speed Post EMS No.ED739250238IN and EMS No.ED739250207IN respectively and only contest the case qua Speed Post EMS No.754095062IN. 

5.      It has been admitted by the post office that the speed post EMS No.754095062IN was received by the post office on December 03^rd, 2012 and was delivered to the complainant on December 14^th, 2012.  For reference, paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by Tara Chand Sharma, Superintendent Post Office, Hisar is reproduced as under:-

                   “4.     That the contents of para No.4 are admitted to the extent that a speed post letter No.754095062IN was received on 03.12.2012 through Rohtak Speed Post Sorting Hub and was delivered on 14.12.2012.  Rests of the contents of para are denied for want of knowledge.”

6.      There is no explanation on the part of the post office for not delivering the speed post immediately after its receipt to the complainant.  It was a case of deficiency in service on the part of the post office.

7.      So far as the complainant’s prayer made for enhancement awarded by the District Forum, that is, Rs.30,000/-, in considered opinion of this Commission, the amount is adequate and requires no enhancement. 

8.      For the reasons recorded supra, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.    Certified copy of this order be placed in the file of Appeal No.180 of 2017.

 

Announced 22.08.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK