Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/239/2016

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master General, General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

R.C. Gupta Adv.

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	239 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	6.4.2016
Date of Decision	:	16.3.2017

 

                                                

                                     

 

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Des Raj presently resident of House No.1020, phase 3B-2, Mohali.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.      The Post Master General, General Post Office, GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

2.      The Post Master, General Post Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

 

…. Opposite Parties.  

Consumer Complaint No.	:	240 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	6.4.2016
Date of Decision	:	16.3.2017

 

                                               

                                     

 

 

Vikas Verma son of Sh. Devendra Kumar presently resident of flat No.3018, 3^rd floor, Ajanta Enclave Society 51D, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.      The Post Master General, General Post Office, GPO, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

2.      The Post Master, General Post Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

 

…. Opposite Parties. 

 

BEFORE:   RAJAN DEWAN                          PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA              MEMBER

SH. RAVINDER SINGH               MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. R.C. Gupta, Adv.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv..

 

Ravinder singh, MEMBER

1.           By this order we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.           The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.239 of 2016 – Manoj Kumar Vs. The Post Master  and anr.
3.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that, the complainant who is a law graduate, applied for Delhi Judicial Services Examination-2015 online.  The application form with requisite documents  including draft etc. was posted to the office of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 2.11.2015 at 1730 Hrs through speed post  at General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh by paying a sum of Rs.45/- . it is pleaded that it was specifically mentioned on the packet containing application that the same must be delivered to the Registrar, Delhi High Court on or before 7.11.2015 by 4 P.M.  But to the utter dismay  of the complainant he received a communication from the office of Registrar Delhi High Court that his application form has been rejected since the same was received after due date.  The complainant immediately approached the OPs and registered a complaint  but the OPs  only gave lame  excuses for not delivering the packet within time frame.  It is alleged that OP No.2  attempted on 9.11.2015 to deliver the packet in question  though the  last date of receiving the same was 7.11.2015. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the complaint for claim of compensation of
   Rs. 3 lakh alongwith punitive damages and litigation expenses.
4.           The OPs in their joint reply stated that  the article in question was dispatched on the same day and the same was received at New Delhi at 06.11.2015 and on 7.11.2015 the bag containing the article was opened. However,  8.11.2015 was Sunday and from 9.11.2015 to 13.11.2015 there were court holidays and 14.11.2015 was second Saturday, hence the Delhi High Court was closed and 15.11.2015 was again Sunday, thus the article was delivered on 16.11.2015. As such there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. The remaining averments were denied, being false and frivolous. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents on record.
7.           The complainant had posted his application form on 2.11.2015. The parcel was dispatched at Chandigarh Post Office on 2.11.2015 itself but due to holidays in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and weekend holidays the same  was delivered on 16.11.2015.  The time was not the essence of acceptance of parcel in post office for delivery by 7.11.2015. The delay in delivery of parcel containing application form etc. does not seem to be intentional or willful on the part of the Postal Officials. 
8.           The complainant should have been vigilant enough to dispatch his documents bit early to ensure the same reach its destination in time.
9.           Keeping in view the facts in issue, the complaint, as such being without merit, is dismissed without no order as to costs.
10.           Similar facts have been pleaded in the other complaint bearing No. 240 of 2016 titled as Vikas Verma Vs. the Post Master General, and Anr..  Therefore,  in view of the above discussion this complaint also stands dismissed having no merit.
11.      A copy of this order be placed in connected consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 – Vikas Verma Vs. the Post Master General, and Anr.., which shall be deemed to form a part of that order.

                    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.3.2017                                                                            sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER