DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.147 of 25-05-2018

Decided on 25-07-2018

Vishal Kumar S/o Chander Bhan R/o New House, St.No.1/7, Krishna Colony, Banagi Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Suppt. City Post Office, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

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:-

Complainant: Sh.Vishal Kumar in person.

For opposite party: Sh.Jasvir Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Vishal Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party Suppt. City Post Office (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his debit card was sent from the bank with Ref No.EB213807079IN, but the post office did not deliver and return it on the same day. When the complainant enquired, the staff did not give satisfactory answer. Superintendent of the office told that his father's name is not mentioned in the letter, so they could not deliver the debit card. The complainant has also written to Chief Post Master, he provided him copy of rules for delivery of letter. As per this rule, father's name is not mandatory for delivery in urban areas.

   On this backdrop of facts, he has claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss and damage. Hence, this complaint.

3. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of RTI information, (Ex.C1); photocopies of letters, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopy of other envelope, (Ex.C4); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C5); photocopy of current status report, (Ex.C6); his affidavit dated 24.5.2018, (Ex.C7) and closed the evidence.

4. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In the written version, opposite party has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi to file this complaint. The speed post article No.E2138070791N was received at City Post Office, Bathinda on 9.3.2018 and was given for delivery to the Postman Beat No.3 for delivery on the same day. Thereafter the postman returned the article on same day as father's name and house number were not mentioned. He returned the article by endorsing the remarks as 'Insufficient address'. As such, the proper and sufficient efforts had been made for delivering the article before returning the article, but due to infirmities in the address of the complainant, the article could not be delivered. Moreover the complainant approached opposite party personally on 24.4.7018. He was convinced to write father's name and house number while submitting address to any public authority so that the letters/articles may be delivered to him correctly. Neither there is any fault on the part of opposite party nor deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has not made debit card issuing authority as party, which was necessary for proper adjudication of the complaint. He has not made 'Union of India' as party as post offices are part of 'Union of India'. He has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

5. On merits, opposite party has reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. Opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gopal Krishan dated 11.7.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of delivery sheet, (Ex.OP1/2) and submitted written arguments.

7. We have heard complainant and learned counsel for opposite party and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite party.

8. The complainant has submitted that opposite party has returned the envelope for want of sufficient address. His complete address including house number and street number were also mentioned. Opposite party was also to make sincere efforts to find out addressee, but it has returned the article in hurry i.e. on the same day. This fact shows that no sincere efforts were made by opposite party. The complainant has also received information under RTI Act, (Ex.C1). It proves that name of father is not required to be mentioned in case of delivery in urban area. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party stands established.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that the complaint is abuse of process of law. There is no malafide or fraudulent intention. The article was received for delivery by speed post. Therefore, quick efforts were made to deliver the article, but the article could not be delivered for want of complete address. Ex.OP1/2, is delivery sheet. It proves that the article was returned for 'insufficient address'.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party that even otherwise, as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, opposite party is exempted from liability for any delay unless delay is due to fraudulent or willful act. There is neither allegation nor any evidence to prove any fraudulent and willful act or default on the part of opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

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

12. The averments of the complainant are that he sent debit card on 9.3.2018, which has been returned 'undelivered'. There is nothing to show the address mentioned on the envelope. Therefore, it is difficult to find out whether the correct address was mentioned or not. Opposite party has produced on record delivery sheet, (Ex.OP1/2). As per this document, envelope was returned 'undelivered' on the ground of 'insufficient address'. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 gives protection to opposite party for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. For sake of convenience, this Section is reproduced as under:-

    “Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by Post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by Central Govt. as hereinafter provided, and no officer of Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

13. A perusal of abovesaid Section reveals that opposite party is liable only if there is loss, mis-delivery or delay etc. with some fraudulent or willful act or default. There is neither any allegation nor any evidence to prove any willful or fraudulent act on the part of opposite party.

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

15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    25-07-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member