Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/54/2020

Sonia Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Post Office Sirsa - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Tandi

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                       Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                                      Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member.                                                                          Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

    

                                                Consumer Complaint No.  54 of 2020.                                                               

                                                    Date of Institution           :   25.02.2020.

                                                Date of Decision            :   04.06.2024

 

Sonia Prajapat wife of Krishan Chander son of Shri Prabhu Ram resident of village Dhabi Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad, Haryana.

 

                                                                   …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Main post office, District Passport Centre, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2.Regional Passport Office, SCO 28-32, Sector 34A, Chandigarh,

 

                                                                   …Opposite Parties (in short                             Ops).

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                 Sh. Pawan Tandi, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Shivanshu Sharma, Sub Inspector, Post Office Service,       on behalf of Op N o.1.

                             Op No.2 exparte on 16.03.2021.      

 

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                            

1.                          Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 02.05.2019, the complainant had applied online for her passport with Op No.1 of which file acknowledgment and passport application annexed with the complaint as annexures 1 & 2; that on 17.06.2019, the complainant got his original documents verified with Op No.1 that when no passport was received, the complainant approached Op No.2 on 29.07.2019 upon which Op No.2 called the complainant at Chandigarh on 30.07.2019 at regional passport office at Chandigarh; that this demand on the part of Op No.2, calling the complainant at Chandigarh is unjustified and the complainant has still not received her passport; that due to this reason, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. In the end, a prayer has been made directing the Ops to compensate the complainant for Rs.90,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Litigation charges in sum of Rs.10,000/- also claimed alongwith any other relief at the discretion of this Commission.

2.                          On notice only Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply whereas OP No.2 did not appear before this Commission despite the fact of confirmation of delivery of summons upon it, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 16.03.2021. In the reply OP No.1 has submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of Op  No.1; that if there was any grievance of the complainant, it was against OP No.2 and not against Op No.1; that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Op No.1. In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint against Op No.1.                  

3.                          In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit as Ex.CW1/A  and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

4.                          We have heard final arguments from both sides and have gone through the case file minutely.

5.                          The main grievance of the complainant is that she should have not been called by Op No.2 at Chandigarh for purpose of verification of her documents and for delivery of his passport when she had already got her documents verified at Sirsa in the office of Op No.1.  Perusal of document Annexure C7 i.e. correspondence made between the husband of the complainant and Op No.2 reveals that the complainant was asked to visit OP No.2 with all original documents but the complainant by way of this complaint has challenged this without any reason and basis. On one hand the complainant is seeking issuance of passport by Op No.2 and on the other hand neither visited it nor submitted all the relevant demanded documents despite intiamtion. In these circumstances, there is no cogent evidence on record that such documents were really and truely got verified at Sirsa. The complainant has also not produced any cogent evidence on record, either oral or documentary, to satisfy this Commission that her calling at Chandigarh by the Op No.2, for the purposes mentioned above, was unjustified. 

6.                          On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 04.06.2024

 

 

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                    (Harisha Mehta)         (Rajbir Singh)                           

          Member                               Member                              President