Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/710

Jishu Dhir Adv. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  710 dated 09.12.2015.                                                               Date of Decision: 21.03.2017.

 

Jishu Dhir, Advocate son of Inderjit Dhir, resident of H. No.1133/27/13, 6 Bank Colony, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                             ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Chief Post Master, Main Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Officer.
2. Postal Window Clerk, Main Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.
3. Union of India through its Secretary, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant, an advocate by profession filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) by claiming that on 19.11.2015 at about 10.50 AM he sent his clerk to post office for sending a registered notice through post so as to comply with the orders of the court. Said postal clerk received articles vide receipt No.RP469075565IN dated 19.11.2015. Said postal clerk wrongly addressed the notices to Sh. Jaspal Verma, Addl. Session Judge, Ludhiana instead of Sh. Ranjeev Kumar, learned CJM, Ludhiana. That notice was duly stamped by the court of Sh. Ranjeev Kumar, learned CJM, Ludhiana, but the clerk was not aware about his work and he wrongly delivered the R.C. in wrong sender address. Realizing that act is not properly performed by postal clerk, he took envelop and corrected the name of the court from Sh. Jaspal Verma to Sh. Ranjeev Kumar through handwriting. That was duly signed and stamped by the postal clerk on 19.11.2015. On being asked by the complainant, name of the court was corrected by the postal clerk. Thereafter, complainant had been approaching Ops time and again with request to issue new receipt, but Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The act of non issue of new receipt caused mental pain, tension and agony to complainant and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to complainant. Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses more claimed. It is claimed that act of Ops amounts to unfair trade practice.

2.                In reply submitted jointly by Ops, it is claimed that complaint is false, frivolous and filed for abusing the process of law with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the honest and hardworking Government officials. Complaint is against the basic principles of law covered by the legal maxim “De minimis non curat lex” As per this maxim, law not to take account of trifles. Continuance of the complaint is wastage of public resources and besides it is claimed that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. Notices were to be sent by the judicial officers of the Judicial Courts, Ludhiana and as such, complainant is not a sender of the registered notice through Ops. Complaint, if any, ought to have been filed by the judicial officers or the District Courts, Ludhiana because the complainant is neither the sender nor author of the document. Each and every other averment of the complaint is denied. Besides it is claimed that complainant is stating contradictory facts because on one hand he is alleging that clerk has gone to post office to get the registered notice dispatched through post, but on the other hand he claimed as if he himself had spoken to the clerk of post office. Any mistake if occurred was not malafide. Officials of Ops did their best to rectify the bonafide mistake. There is no provision in the postal department to issue new receipt in case a receipt has already been issued. Complainant cannot pressurize the department to commit illegality or to do the work in contravention of the rules and regulations. Department had corrected the receipt, which is as good as a new one. Moreover authenticity of issued receipt is not a question. In case the same  called into question at any stage on account of cutting or correction, then department undertakes to depose regarding the authenticity of the document. No pain or torture caused to the complainant or to the judicial officer and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPS. It is not specified as to what damage occurred to judicial officers, who sent the notice.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with his clerk Mr. Bhanu Kumar as Ex. CB and even tendered document Ex. C1 and then closed evidence.

4.                On the other hand counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.  Sat Pal Phawa, Senior Post Master and then closed evidence.                                

5.                Written arguments submitted by both parties.

6.                On application for additional evidence being filed, the same was allowed and the complainant tendered in additional evidence copy of jimni order as Ex. CW2. Oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.

7.                It is vehemently contended by complainant itself through written arguments as well as through oral arguments that receipt Ex. C1 shows cutting of name of the court from Sh. Jaspal Verma, Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana to Sh. Ranjeev Kumar, Learned CJM, Ludhiana and as such the wrong postal receipt was issued, which caused mental tension and sufferings to complainant. Even if discrepancy in version of complaint may be qua fact that complainant went for sending the postal articles through post or his clerk went there, despite that Ops have undertaken through written statement as well as through affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sat Pal Phawa, Senior Post Master that in case authenticity of receipt in question challenged at any stage, then same will be owned by Ops. That authenticity of receipt Ex. C1 is not challenged by any one. Rather by placing reliance on this postal receipt Ex. C1 dated 19.11.2015, court of Sh. Ranjeev Kumar, learned CJM, Ludhiana vide order dated 21.12.2015 held that statutory presumption of service draw-able owing to lapse of period of 30 days. So virtually court of Sh. Ranjeev Kumar, learned CJM, Ludhiana relied on this receipt for passing order Ex. CW2 dated 21.12.2015. So authenticity of the receipt not questioned by the court concerned at all. If that be the position, then no loss caused to the complainant and this complaint certainly is filed for extraneous reasons.

8.                Order 5 rule 9 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure  of 1908 provides that service of the summons may be made by transmitting a copy through registered post with acknowledgement duly addressed to the defendant. It is for the court as per order 5 rule 9 CPC to send the summons to defendant and as such, consumer remains the court. However, these summons were sent by the court for availing services for complainant and as such, complainant virtually was user of services availed by the court. Being so certainly the complainant is consumer within meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act. Even if that be the position despite that provisions of Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act provides that complaint may be filed before District Forum by the consumer to whom goods are sold or who availed services or by any recognized consumer association or whether there are one or more consumers by one of them with permission. Present complaint is not filed by the complainant as user of services with the permission of the District Forum. Consumer who availed the services in this case was the court concerned, who sent the summons and as such, case of complainant does not fall with any of the clauses of Section 12(1) of Consumer Protection Act. Being so submission advanced by counsel for Ops has force that complaint being not filed by the person empowered to do so, is not maintainable. That submission has force in view of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and as such, certainly the complaint is not maintainable, but particularly when the receipt in question accepted as correct by the court concerned (who sent the summons through registered post).

9.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:21.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.