DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.14 of 16-01-2018

Decided on 27-09-2018

Amarjit Singh Tata aged about 40 years S/o Sher Singh Tata S/o Jameet Singh R/o Town Goniana Mandi, Ward No.3 (New), Ward No.9 (old), Street No.3/2, Dashmesh Nagar, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Superintendent of Post Officer Bathinda, Post Office Bazaar, Bathinda.

2.Post Master, PO Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda-151001.

3.Postman, PO Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda-151001. (Deleted)

4.Government of India, through its Secretary. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Amandeep Sharma, Advocate.

For opposite party Nos.1 & 2: Sh.M.R Gupta, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.3 and 4: Deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Amarjit Singh Tata (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Superintendent of Post Officer Bathinda and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he applied one PAN Card of his son namely Parminder Singh Tata on 17.11.2017 vide application No.N/2971397000-39140 No.C, which was made from the office at Pune and delivered on 4.12.2017.

3. It is alleged that opposite parties in connivance with each other, just to harass and humiliate the complainant and grab money from him, in bad intention and knowingly reported on the envelope of the PAN Card on 5.12.2017 that the house was closed and not proper destination and sent back to office at Pune and was reached at that office on 15.12.2017. The complainant approached opposite party Nos.2 and 3, but they did not give any sufficient reply and misbehaved with him.

4. It is further alleged that opposite parties knowingly and willfully did not perform their duty and PAN Card did not deliver to the complainant. Even the mobile number of the complainant was written on the envelope with address, but opposite parties did not make him single call. He has suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment due to this arbitrary act of opposite parties. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/-.

5. It is also alleged that notice dated 22.12.2017 has also been sent to opposite parties and they were called upon to deliver PAN Card, but no reply has been received. Hence, this complaint for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- and directions to opposite parties to deliver PAN Card.

6. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

7. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In the written version, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi. He has neither hired the services nor he is beneficiary. He does not come under definition of 'consumer' U/s 2(d) of 'Act'. The speed post article No.EA328955828IN was received at Goniana Mandi Post Office on 5.12.2017 through IC Hub Bathinda. It was given for delivery to the postman on 5.12.2017 after entering in delivery slip. The postman had given remarks 'deposit for try' on 5.12.2017. The article was again given for delivery to the postman on 6.12.2017 and postman returned the article with remarks 'insufficient address, return to sender' on 6.12.2017. The article was returned on 7.12.2017 after entering article at serial No.3/22 in speed post list. The proper and sufficient efforts had been made for delivering the product before returning the article by opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Moreover the complainant never approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 personally for delivery of article. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant had not made PAN Card Issuing Authority as party. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

8. On merits, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have controverted all the averments of the complainant and reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above.

9. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

10. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of tax invoice, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C5); photocopy of PAN application status, (Ex.C2); photocopy of birth certificate, (Ex.C3); photocopy of Aadhaar Card, (Ex.C4); photocopy of application status, (Ex.C6); photocopy of envelope, (Ex.C7); his affidavit dated 4.4.2018, (Ex.C8); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C9); photocopies of postal receipts, (Ex.C10 to Ex.C12) and closed the evidence.

11. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Gopal Krishan dated 22.5.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); copy of orders, (Ex.OP1/2); copy of letter, (Ex.OP1/3); copy of medical certificate, (Ex.OP1/4) and submitted written arguments.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

13. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant has applied for PAN Card for his minor son Parminder Singh Tata. Therefore, he has locus-standi to file the complaint. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have admittedly received PAN Card and they have not delivered the same to the complainant on the ground that the address was insufficient. The complainant has placed on record slip, (Ex.C1) vide which PAN Card was applied for on 17.11.2017. He subsequently, applied for PAN Card vide slip, (Ex.C5). In both slips, proof of identity is Aadhaar Card, but subsequent letter was delivered to the complainant at same address. The slip, (Ex.C7) also proves that PAN Authority mentioned the correct address of the complainant. As such, the inference is to be drawn that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have intentionally not delivered the PAN Card, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. He has levelled the false allegations. He has relied upon copy of notice, (Ex.C9). In this notice, he has alleged that Sub Postmaster Lavish Kumar, Postman Sanjay Kumar and Postman Jagjit Singh in connivance with each other and to harass the complainant, have not delivered the article. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have produced on record documentary evidence Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3, which prove that Postman Jagjit Singh was on medical leaves from 7.11.2017 to 10.12.2017. Similarly, Lavish Kumar, Sub Postmaster was on medical leave for 5 days from 5.12.2017. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant are patently absurd and false. It shows that he has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. Even otherwise, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were not having reason to withheld the article, if it was properly addressed. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the envelope containing PAN Card was having proper address. Of-course, subsequent letter was delivered to the complainant, but for the reason that it was having complete address. There is no evidence to prove that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have intentionally not delivered the article despite having sufficient address. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

15. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

16. The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. The complainant has pleaded that his earlier envelope containing PAN Card was not delivered. Admittedly, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have returned the article with the remarks 'insufficient address'. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that previous envelope, which was not delivered, was having sufficient address.

    Of-course, the complainant has pleaded that he has received the PAN Card at same address in the month of February 2018. Ex.C7, is address for delivery of second envelope, but from this fact alone, it cannot be concluded that earlier envelope was also having identical and sufficient address.

17. The complainant also alleged that just to harass, humiliate and garb money from him, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not delivered the envelope. The complainant has produced copy of legal notice, (Ex.C9). In this notice, he has alleged that the Sub Postmaster Lavish Kumar, Postman Sanjay Kumar and Postman Jagjit Singh, who were on duty, in connivance with each other and in greed and intentionally, have not delivered the article and made false report on 5.12.2017. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also produced on record certificate, (Ex.OP1/2) and letter, (Ex.OP1/3). Ex.OP1/2, proves that Postman Jagjit Singh was on medical leave from 7.11.2017 to 10.12.2017 and Sub Postmaster Lavish Kumar was on medical leave from 5.12.2017. This documentary evidence proves that both Lavish Kumar and Jagjit Singh were not on duty on fateful day i.e. 5.12.2017. Therefore, averments of the complainant that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in connivance with each other and in greed, have intentionally made the false report stands belied.

18. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    27-09-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member