RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 822 of 2009

1- Union of India through Superintendent of

    Post Office, Gorakhpur.

2- Shri Dharam Das s/o Shri Radhey, Post Master,

    Village/Post, Baddai Purwa, Tehsil Khajni,

    P.S. Bans Gaon, District, Gorakhpur.      ….Appellants.

Versus

Paltan Beldar adult in age son of Late Badri,

R/o Village, Baddai Purwa, Tehsil, Khajni,

P.S. Basgaon, District, Gorakhpur.             …Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Dr. Udai Vir Singh for the appellants.

Shri Ajai  Pandey for the respondent.

Date   8.3.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.4.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Gorakhpur in complaint case No.140 of 2008, the appellant Union of India through Superintendent of Post Office and another have preferred the instant appeal. 

Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint case in the District Consumer Forum at Gorakhpur on the ground that a cheque of arrears of his pension by registered post was sent to him but the same was not delivered to the respondent/complainant by the OP no.2 and was returned to the department with a remark that no such person resides at the address given. The registered post was

(2)

wrongly returned by the OP no.2 whereby the respondent/ complainant suffered financial loss and it amounted to deficiency in service of the OPs. Because of not receiving the cheque the respondent/ complainant had to run to the Account Officer, West Bengal and had to unnecessary fulfill many formalities and there was much delay in receiving the pension. Hence, the complaint was filed for compensation etc. In this complaint, the OPs filed their WS mentioned therein that the case was not maintainable as the complainant was not the consumer as the addressee of the impugned article had no right to file the complaint. The complaint is barred by Section '6' of the  Indian Post Offices Act and is also barred by clauses 26 and 29 of the  Post Offices Guide Part-I. The article was received at Bhiti Rawat Branch Post Office where it was tried for delivery at village Bharpurwa but no person named as Paltan Beldar was there and hence, the article was returned to the sender. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the ld. Forum has passed the following order as under:-

"परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह संयुक्‍त रूप से परिवादी को दी जाने वाली सेवा में कमी के स्‍वरूप 5000/- रू0 की क्षतिपूर्ति एंव परिवाद व्‍यय 1000/- रू0 निर्णय के एक माह के अन्‍दर अदा करें, नियत तिथि तक अनुपालन न होन पर समस्‍त देय धनराशि पर निर्णय की तिथि से 9 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज भी देय होगा।"

Feeling aggrieved this order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

The main grounds of the appeal are that the

(3)

registered article was having a wrong address hence, the same was returned.  The complaint is without jurisdiction as there was no ulterior motive of the department. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant hence, the judgment has been wrongly passed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

          Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

          In this case, it is to be ascertained as to whether the complainant was not a consumer and therefore, the case was not maintainable in the Forum below. It is also to be ascertained as to whether the OPs committed deficiency in service in not delivering the letter to the complainant, if so its consequences.

It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not a consumer because he had not paid anything for the article which was sent by the Railways to the addressee/complainant and therefore, as the addressee was not a consumer and therefore, the case was not maintainable in the Consumer Fora. We find that, it is true that the complainant was the addressee and had not paid anything for the article to be sent to him. It was the Railway who had paid for the article to be sent to the complainant and therefore, according to the counsel for the appellant, the respondent/complainant was not a consumer but from the definition of the consumer as given under Section 2(d)(ii) "Consumer means any person who – [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly

(4)

promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for  consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of which the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];"

From the aforesaid section, it is clear that even though the consideration for hiring the services was paid by the Railways in the instant case but the beneficiary of such services is the complainant himself as it is he, who will receive the article and therefore, under the aforesaid definition of the Consumer the complaint is squarely covered as he was the beneficiary of the services for which someone-else had paid. Therefore, the argument for the ld. counsel for the appellant that the respondent/complainant was not a consumer is not tenable. Another argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did not commit any deficiency in service as the address was not correctly written and therefore, official of the appellant could not trace out the complainant for the article to be delivered to him. In this regard, we find that the address is written as Paltan Beldar, Village & Post Barhpurwa, District, Gorakhpur U.P. and the remark on this undelivered article is recorded as "इस नाम को पो0 ग्राम भीटी रावत टोला, भरपुरवा में कोई आदमी नहीं मिला। अत: वापस।" The reason given for the address to be wrongly given by the appellant is that the address given on the article was

(5)

BARHPURWA and not BAHRAIPURWA but this is absolutely incorrect as in the address Barhpurwa is clearly written, so it is wrong to state that Bahraipurwa was written. Another argument advanced from the side of the appellant is that no such person as Paltan Beldar was found hence, the article was returned to the sender but in this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent that it was wrong to say that no such person named Paltan Beldar was found and the article was returned as in a letter written by the department of the appellant was sent to the respondent/ complainant at his given address which was duly received by him, as is evident from the copy of the letter filed as annexure CA '2'. If the respondent was not residing at the given address then he would not have received a letter written by the official of the appellant at the given address which was duly received by him. On the basis of this fact, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent that the article was returned with wrong intention of harassing the retired person and therefore, even when the address was correctly written, still the article was not delivered to him which caused him immense suffering. When an article is correctly addressed and the person resides over there, as is evident from the evidence on record and wrong explanation or justification is given for not delivering the article, the only irresistible conclusion is that the act was done deliberately to harass the complainant who is a senior citizen.

Under the circumstances, there appears to be clear

(6)

cut deficiency on the part of the appellant/OP and the case does not file within Section '6' under the Indian Post Offices Act and therefore, the ld. Forum has passed a reasonable and justified order as the senior citizen was thoroughly harassed because of the deficiency in service of the appellant/OP. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.     

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                    (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                       Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4