Haryana

StateCommission

A/332/2021

V.L. KOHLI - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE AMBALA CANTT. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:18.11.2021

                Date of final hearing:07.09.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 27.10.2022

 

First Appeal No.332 of 2021

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

V.L. Kohli, R/o Chanderpuri, P.O. Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt-133004.

.….Appellant.

Shri V.L. Kohli, appellant in person.

Versus

 

1.    Department of Post through Supdt. of Post Offices, Ambala Cantt.-133001.

2.    Superintendent of Post Office, Kapurthala-144006.

….Respondents.

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri V.L. Kohli, appellant in person.

 

O R D E R

Per: S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

           Mr. V.L. Kohli-complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 04.10.2021, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (In short “District Commission”) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that on 17.08.2019 he (complainant) dispatched a registered letter addressed to Mohinder Kumar son of Om Parkash, Mohalla Jatupura, Kapurthala-144601 from Kashyap Nagar, Ambala Cantt. post office, vide bar code No.RH399081456IN for easy delivery to the abovesaid addressee. However, the said registered letter was returned back undelivered to him on 04.09.2019 and no reason was attributed for non delivery of the same to its addressee. As per track record, the registered letter was received by Kapurthala post office on 19.08.2019 and was given out for delivery on 20.08.2019, but as the door was found to be locked as such, HPO keep it with itself from 20.08.2019 to 30.08.2019. Again on 31.08.2019, it was taken out for delivery but again could not be delivered due to insufficient address. It was further alleged that on 20.08.2019, house locator found that the door was locked and on 31.08.2019 it was found that address was insufficient. Moreover, the registered letter was detained in HPO from 19.08.2019 to 31.08.2019 without any purpose. It was further alleged that as per departmental rules, if the door of addressee was found locked, the postman should have left/pasted a written notice for the addressee at the conspicuous place and again taken out the registered letter for delivery to the addressee on following day but he has failed to do so. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

3.                The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing written reply before the District Commission taking preliminary objection that Section 6 exempt Post Office staff from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except to such extent as the liability may be under taken by the government in express terms. 4.          On merits, it was submitted that complainant booked a registered article No.RH3990814561IN from Kuldeep Nagar, S.O Post Office on 17.08.2019 and the article was returned to sender with the remarks RTS incomplete address. Giving out the detail, it was alleged that the article in question was received at Kapurthala HPO on 19.08.2019 and taken out for delivery on 20.08.2019. However, as the address mentioned on the article was insufficient/incomplete and thus it was retained back in deposit for retry and due to technical limitation in the software provisions for remark ‘article in deposit’ was not available hence remark ‘door locked’ was given by the postman and as per norms, article kept in deposit for 07 days, if the article is undelivered due to addressee not found/door locked etc. It was further submitted that there was insufficient address on the article, therefore the said article was detained and kept in deposit for further delivery in subsequent days but the addressee could not be traced and thus was sent back finally. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind dismissed the complaint vide order dated 07.04.2021.

5.               Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.                The argument has been advanced by Mr. V.L. Kohli, appellant, who has appeared in person before this Commission. With his kind assistance the entire appeal as well as record of learned District Commission had been properly perused and examined.

7.                During the course of arguments before this Commission, the appellant (original complainant) has argued that he booked a registered letter addressed to one Shri Mohinder Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash from Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Post Office on 17.08.2019, but the same was returned back on 04.09.2019 undelivered and no reason was assigned for non-delivery of the article to the addressee. It was further argued that the said letter was detained in HPO for long unnecessarily. He continued further that as per department rules, if the door of addressee was found locked then, the postman should have left/pasted a written notice for the addressee at some conspicuous place and again taken out the registered letter for delivery to the addressee on following day but in the present case, Ops failed to do so and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops. He further prayed for allowing the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission which ignored all these things and also prayed for an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- on account of financial loss.

8.                From the record admittedly on 17.08.2019 appellant-complainant booked a registered letter addressed to Mohinder Kumar son of Om Parkash, Mohalla Jatupura, Kapurthala-144601 from Kashyap Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Post Office, vide bar code No.RH399081456IN for easy delivery thereof to its destination  and finally this registered letter was returned back to the appellant on 04.09.2019. Evidently, after this registered article was received in HPO the same was entrusted to person concerned for its onward transmission, but somehow or the other, when the addressee could not be traced only then the same was deposited back with HPO for its safe custody till fresh efforts were to be made for its delivery. Again this article handed over to the postman on 31.08.2019, but desired result could not be achieved, following which the same was sent back to the sender. However, what problems were faced by the delivery man on both these occasions will duly mentioned and recorded on the envelope itself as per rules. Perusal of record reveals that only name of the addressee was mentioned, but the house number was not mentioned on the registered letter, so in the absence of complete address, respondents could not deliver the letter in question. This is how it was none other but appellant himself who was responsible to a great extent in this entire episode. In fact, it was due to non mentioning of house number of addressee that the article could not be delivered to the proper person. Moreover, Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 exempts post office from any liability or loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages to any post article in the course of transmission by post. In view of the facts and circumstances, discussed above, we find that appellant himself failed to disclose the house number and complete addressee on the said registered letter, so the said letter could not delivered to the addressee. The learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The respondents are not responsible for any kind of negligence or deficiency in service and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District Commission, Ambala. Resultantly, present appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limini.

9.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.              Application(s), if any, is hereby disposed off accordingly.

11.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on ____________

                                                                                                S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member

                                                                                                            Addl. Bench

 

 

R.K