Punjab

Sangrur

CC/228/2018

Rakesh Kumar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of Post - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandeep Kumar Hareri

23 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                         Complaint No.       228

                                                                                          Instituted on:  08.05.2018

                                                                                          Decided on:    23.01.2020

 

Rakesh Kumar Singla son of Shri Sham Lal Singla, President of VOICE Organization (Regd.) and Shiv Bhole Langer Committee (Regd), Head Office: Bye Pass Road, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

1.       Department of Post, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Chief Post Master General.

2.       Superintendent of Post, Head Post Office, Sangrur.

3.       Sub Post Office, Lehragaga-148031 District Sangrur through its Post Master.

                                                  ..Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri S.K.Hareri,Adv.            

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES               : Shri S.S.Randhawa, Advocate                         

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                              Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                  Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

      

1.             Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla is the President of NGO Shiv Bhole Langer Committee (Regd), which provides langer to the yatries during Shri Amar Nath Yatra for the last 25 years and it also provides free parshad of Shri Amar Nath Yatra to the worshipers/devotees.  The case of the complainant is that on 15.9.2017, the complainant sent the parshad in 100/150 packets through registered parcel against proper postal receipts and paid the amount thereof.  Again on 20.9.2017. 23.9.2017, 3.10.2017, 6.10.2017, 7.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 the complainant sent the parshad in different packets.  The grievance of the complainant is that the parcel having consignment number CP1233442931N dated 15.9.2017 sent at Kolhapur was received back in torn and damaged condition on 3.10.2017. Further the consignment number CP123344917N dated 15.9.2017 sent to Braily, CP123344537IN dated 15.9.2017 to Gurgaon were received back in torn and damaged condition on 26.9.2017 and 3.10.2017 from the postman. The consignment number CP123345206IN dated 20.9.2017 sent to Gorakhpur and CP123345926IN dated 20.9.2017  sent to Agra was received back in torn condition on 7.10.2017 and 3.10.2017.  Further consignment number CP15573413IN dated 12.10.2017 sent to Delhi was received back in torn condition on 21.11.2017. The complainant has thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/- and further claimed litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as per which the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss/misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Govt. of India as hereinafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by such reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked registered parcel on 15.9.2017, 20.09.2017, 23.09.2017, 12.10.2017. However, it is denied by the OP for want of knowledge that he sent the prashad in question. It is stated further that the complainant has not mentioned on the above said booked parcels that inside of such parcels there are eatables and perishable goods i.e. prashad contained in the articles in question.  It is stated further that the articles booked by the OPs were dispatched on the same day.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 copies of documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file. 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant is the President of NGO Shiv Bhole Langer Committee (Regd), which provides langer to the yatries during Shri Amar Nath Yatra for the last 25 years and it also provides free parshad of Shri Amar Nath Yatra to the worshipers/devotees.  The case of the complainant is that on 15.9.2017, the complainant sent the parshad in 100/150 packets through registered parcel against proper postal receipts and paid the amount thereof.  Again on 20.9.2017. 23.9.2017, 3.10.2017, 6.10.2017, 7.10.2017 and 12.10.2017 the complainant sent the parshad in different packets.  The grievance of the complainant is that the parcel having consignment number CP1233442931N dated 15.9.2017 sent at Kolhapur was received back in torn and damaged condition on 3.10.2017. Further the consignment number CP123344917N dated 15.9.2017 sent to Braily, CP123344537IN dated 15.9.2017 to Gurgaon were received back in torn and damaged condition on 26.9.2017 and 3.10.2017 from the postman. The consignment number CP123345206IN dated 20.9.2017 sent to Gorakhpur and CP123345926IN dated 20.9.2017  sent to Agra was received back in torn condition on 7.10.2017 and 3.10.2017.  Further consignment number CP15573413IN dated 12.10.2017 sent to Delhi was received back in torn condition on 21.11.2017 and thus has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the OP is not at all liable to pay any compensation in view of section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act.  However, the booking of parcels have been admitted and has further strongly contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.

7.             We have very carefully perused the case file and found that the complainant is not a consumer as he has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent document such as authorization letter to defend the case of the organization against the OPs.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why the complainant has not produced such a cogent document to prove his case.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not  a consumer of the OPs. 

 

8.             In the sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Pronounced.

                January 23,2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                    Member                  President