Haryana

Sonipat

125/2013

JITENDER S/O HAWA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SUB POSTMASTER FARMANA DISTT SONEPAT,2. THE HEAD POSTMASTER - Opp.Party(s)

B.M. SEHGAL

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.125 of 2013

Instituted on:14.03.2013

Date of order:02.03.2015

Jitender son of Hawa Singh, resident of VPO Farmana, district Sonepat.

...Complainant.

Versus

1.Sub Post Master, Sub Post office, Farmana, distt. Sonepat.

2.The Head Post Master, Head Post office, Sonepat.

 

...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. BM Sehgal Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Aditya Sharma, Adv. and Sh. Parveen Kumar, Adv.

for respondents.

　

BEFORE NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

O R D E R

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he applied for the post of peon in Karnal Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Karnal and he received a letter on 16.1.2013 from the said bank in which a call for interview was sent to the complainant for 9.1.2013. The said letter was sent by the said bank from Karnal on 24.12.2012 and in this way, the respondents have delayed the delivery of the said post and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2. The respondents appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as the department is exempted from loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. There is no deficiency, negligence or carelessness on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely. We have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents very carefully.

4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs from the respondents as the respondents have delayed the delivery of letter as the complainant has received the call letter of interview on 16.1.2013, whereas the said letter was sent to the complainant on 24.12.2o12.

On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as the department is exempted from loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. There is no deficiency, negligence or carelessness on the part of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the complainant has also argued his case vehemently, but has failed to rebut Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898. In our view, as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the respondents. In our view, since there is no rebuttal to Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 from the side of the complainant, this Forum is also unable to ignore Section 6 mentioned above. Further the complainant has not Karnal Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Karnal as a party to the present complaint. Further more, the letter was sent by the above said bank to the complainant by ordinary post and not through the registered post. Thus, it is held that the present complaint has no merit and thus, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

　

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi) (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF Member DCDRF DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:2.3.2015