DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 117 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 10.10.2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 06.12.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barman
COMPLAINANT : Smt. Bakul Ghosh, W/O – Sri Parimal Chandra Ghosh, Residing at Santoshpur Govt. Colony, P.O. – Santoshpur (M), P.S. – Maheshtala, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 142.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sub-Post Master, Santoshpur Govt. Colony, P.O. – Santoshpur (M), Block – A, Kolkata – 700 142.
2. Smt. Jharna Kanthal, Then Sub-Post Master, Now an employee of E-Money order Dept., G.P.O., Kolkata – 700 001.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, South Presidency Division, Baruipur H.O., South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 144.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The epitome of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainants runs as follows.
Complainant is an authorized agent of post office (O.P. no. 1). Her duty is to collect money from the person who wants to make deposit in various schemes of the Postal Department. She works on commission basis and commission money is paid to her through S/B account of her lying in post office (O.P. no. 1). The collecting money of the deposit is also paid by her to post office through that account. But, after introduction of computerized system in the post office of O.P. no. 1, the money of some of the depositors went missing. Their names are not found up-loaded in computer; even the link of the computer was found missing. Complainant could not therefor deposit the money in post office, collected by her and could not provide any receipt to her depositors. Her reputation in the eye of her depositors was seriously besmirched. Thereafter, her account was also frozen by O.P. no. 1 on the vague allegation of excess money found in her account. No fruitful step is taken by either O.P. no. 1 or by the higher authority of him i.e. O.P. no. 2, although several correspondences were made in this regard by the complainant. O.P. no. 2 has not taken any action against O.P. no. 1 for dereliction of duty. Reputation of the complainant is totally lost; her income is also lost due to arbitrary act of O.Ps. O.P. no. 2 has taken no action against O.P. no. 1 or has not taken any step for amelioration of the travails of the complainant. The complainant has therefore come up before the forum with the filing of the instant case praying for compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and also for mental agony and harassment suffered by her. Hence, this case.
Both O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have filed W/V separately to contest the case. Their version is that the complainant is an authorized agent of post office for collecting money from the depositors in various schemes of Postal Department. She is not a consumer within the meaning of the term under section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the case is not maintainable against them. Their positive case is that during up-gradation of the system from manual to CBS, extra money was found in the account of the complainant. Therefore, the account of the complainant was frozen under instruction of higher authority. Reputation of Postal Department is more valuable than the complainant’s. Reputation of the Postal Department is seriously eroded by dishonest act of the complainant. There is neither any merits in her case nor is there any deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led by all parties. Questionnaires, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1, 2 and 3 :
Now to see whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the term ‘Consumer’ as provided under section 2 (1) (d), C.P. Act, 1986. According to the provision under section 2 (1) (d), C.P. Act, 1986, consumer is a person who purchases any goods for consideration for use by himself, or who hires or avails of any service for consideration for own use. From the definition of ‘Consumer’ it is clear that there must be a trade involved in the transaction between a seller and a buyer. If there is no trade, there is no consumer. Definition of service is provided under section 2 (1) (o) of the aforesaid Act and there is an exemption clause appended to the definition of service, which provides that the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service is not ‘service’ as provided under section 2 (1) (o) of the said Act. Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found that the complainant is an agent of the Postal Department. She works on commission basis and her commission is deposited in S/B account of her maintained with the post office i.e. O.P. no. 1. So, it is found that there is no question of any trade between the complainant and the O.Ps.; there is no question of payment of any consideration by Postal Department to the complainant. This being so, the complainant does not appear to be a consumer within the meaning of definition as provided in C.P. Act, 1986. The service rendered by the complainant towards the O.Ps. is a personal service and as such this service of the complainant does not also come within the definition of ‘service’ as provided in C.P. Act, 1986. Moreover, the grievance of the complainant is that O.P. no. 1 has unlawfully and arbitrarily frozen her account so that she cannot make deposit all her collecting money to that account. She wants to take action against O.P. no. 1 for dereliction of duty and as part of a punishment of O.P. no. 1, she has approached this forum praying for compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. Such an action against the O.Ps. for dereliction of duty as alleged by the complainant cannot be entertained by this forum. The forum exists for the consumer and its duty is to extend better protection to the interest of the consumers. Complainant being not a consumer is not entitled to any relief from this forum. The dispute of the complainant is not at all a consumer dispute. That apart, there is an allegation of defalcation of money against the consumer for her dishonest act. The O.Ps. have lodged FIR before the concerned police station. Considering all the facts and circumstances as pointed out above we are of the opinion that the instant case is not maintainable in law. Point nos. 1 and 2 are thus answered against the complainant.
Point no. 3:
In view of foregoing discussion we do hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order passed as to the cost of the proceeding.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree President
Member Member
Directed and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order passed as to the cost of the proceeding.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
