KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 01/2024
ORDER DATED: 19.04.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. 687/23 in C.C. 408/2023 of CDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Sub Postmaster, Edappally P.O., Kochi-682 024.
- Sub Postmaster, Ramapuram Bazar P.O., Kottayam-686 576.
(By Sandeep R.P., Authorized Representative)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Biju Thomas, Pallivathukkal House, 13/763, Aiswarya Lane, Thoppil, Thrikkakara P.O., Pin-682 021.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This revision is filed against an order dated 10.10.2023 in I.A. No. 687/2023 in C.C. No. 408/2023 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam. The respondent herein had filed a complaint against the Post Master, Sub Post Office, Edappally and the Post Master, Sub Post Office, Ramapuram Bazar P.O., Kottayam District. According to the complainant he had sent an Electronic Money Order from Edappally Sub Post Office, Ernakulam to Ramapuram Bazar Sub Post Office, Kottayam. The EMO was booked for the Vicar, St. Augustine’s Forane Church, Ramapuram Bazar P.O., Ramapuram, Kottyam. According to him 09.05.2023 was his father’s 45th death anniversary. A money order for Rs. 300/- was sent to conduct the Mass for the dead at 7.45 am on 09.05.2023, the date of death of his father. But, according to him, the money order was delivered only at 15:10:48 pm on 09.05.2023. Therefore, he lodged a complaint in the online system of India Postal Department on 09.05.2023. He received a reply informing that his complaint would be enquired into. Thereafter, on checking the online portal he found that his complaint had been closed on 15.05.2023. Though he lodged a complaint with the Nodal Officer, there was no reply. It was in the above circumstances that he approached the District Commission with his complaint.
2. The complaint was admitted and on receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared. On 27.07.2023 I.A. No. 687/2023 was filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam Postal Division, Kochi to get impleaded as additional 3rd opposite party in the complaint. The said petition was initially allowed by the District Commission and the case was posted to 09.10.2023. On 09.10.2023 when the case was taken up, finding that no version has been filed, opposite parties 1 & 2 were set ex-parte. But the case was thereafter posted for the version of 3rd opposite party, who was impleaded as per the order in I.A. No. 687/2023. The complainant then put forward an objection that he had not submitted any application to implead any one in the party array of his complaint. The District Commission thereupon examined the petition I.A. No. 687/2023 and found that the applicant had not disclosed his identity therein by showing his address. Finding that the I.A. had been allowed on the mistaken impression that it had been filed by the complainant, the District Commission suo motu reviewed its order. Thus, the order by which the 3rd opposite party had been impleaded was set aside. Thereafter, finding that no version had been filed by the respondents 1 & 2 the case was posted for ex-parte evidence of the complainant. The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the said order.
3. According to the revision petitioners, as per the rules in Postal Manual Volume II, only Gazetted Officers in the Department of Posts who are fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case are authorized/vested with the power to sign and verify the plaints and written statements. The opposite parties in the complaint are non-gazetted officers and therefore written statement could only be filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam Division as Edappally Post Office comes under the administrative jurisdiction of the said officer. It was for the purpose of compliance with the said rule that the Superintendent of Post Offices had got impleaded in the complaint. Based on the authority conferred under the rules, written version was filed by the Senior Superintendent for and on behalf of other opposite parties also. Therefore, the District Commission seriously went wrong in setting aside its order impleading the 3rd opposite party in the complaint. It was contended that as a result, the revision petitioners have lost the opportunity to put forward their contentions before the District Commission.
4. We have heard the authorized representative of the revision petitioners as well as the respondent who appeared in person. As rightly pointed out by the respondent, this revision is filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam Postal Division, Kochi who is not a party to the complaint that is pending before the District Commission. It was he who had filed I.A. No. 687/2023 to get himself impleaded as additional 3rd opposite party. He had no authority to do so and the District Commission seriously went wrong in allowing the petition and impleading him as the additional 3rd opposite party. When the above error was pointed out by the respondent/complainant, the District Commission suo moto reviewed and set aside its order which cannot be found fault with. The power to correct an inadvertent mistake of its own cannot be denied by any authority. This revision filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices who is not a party to the complaint is not maintainable. We are also not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the order under revision that requires to be corrected.
For the above reasons, this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb