This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 25.09.2019 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Malda in CC No. 11 of 2017.
The instant Consumer Case was initiated with a complaint registered by one Mani Lal Ghosh, against Superintendent of Post Office and the Post Master of Malda head Post Office as OP No. 1 & 2.
The Consumer complaint case in brief is that one Postmaster known by the name Kishore Mahato was a Postman of Beat No. XIII of Malda H.P.O. under whose jurisdiction the North Krishna Pally Bank Colony issituated.
The said postman came to the complainant’s residence for delivery of a registered letter on 02.06.2012 addressed to his daughter Arpita Ghosh who is an Assistant Professor "Human Rights" of Rabindra Bharati University. When the Postman knocked the door of the complainant's house for delivery of the letters, Nivedita Ghosh, mother of Arpita Ghosh produced before the said Postman the Voter Identity Card of Arpita Ghosh to receive the said letter. But the said Postman refused to deliver the letter to the mother of Arpita Ghosh through a letter of Authority of Arpita Ghosh was executed in favour of her mother and said letter of authority was duly authenticated by the Post Master Malda Head Post Office, Malda. The further case of the complainant is that an Intimation Slip dt. 06.08.2011 in the complainant's name vide registered article No. 4571 came to the house of the complainant but the said registered article was not delivered by the said postman. On 29.04.2015, the said Postman again came to deliver a Speed Post article to the wife of the complainant. At the same time the said postman again refused to deliver the said speed post though the mother of Arpita Ghosh produced a letter of authority in her favour but the postal peon gave an intimation slip in this respect. On 09.08.2016 the said Postman came to the residence of complainant with a registered letter which was in the name of complainant and the said postman refused to deliver the same to his wife though the wife of the complainant showed the authority letter duly authenticated by Head Post Master, Malda. Finding no other alternative the complainant lodged a written complaint to the concerned authority of the Post Office but ultimately there was no fruitful result. Thereafter, the complainant has come to this Forum for deficiency of service and harassment for mental pain and agony.
The petition has been contested by the O. Ps by filing the written version denying all material allegations as leveled against the Postal Authority contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. According to law, averments made in the petition are fake, indefinite and unjustified and not supported by law. The definite defense case is that if the addressee of a letter is not found the letter cannot be delivered to the person other than the addressee unless a valid authorization is given to receive the article addressed to the addressee. The further case is that the complainant is a responsible and respectable person who is a practicing Lawyer of Malda District Court and he used to come Court from 10-00 A.M. to 05-00 P.M. So, he should have given alternative address of Malda Court or made proper authorization to any person at his residence in front of the Postman enabling the Postman to make delivery of his registered letter. But nothing was done. The further defense case is that the Postman followed the delivery norms and the registered article was not delivered as no proper authorization letter was submitted.
On consideration the facts and circumstances, the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost. In order to prove the case, the complainant himself was examined as P.W-1 and cross-examined and during trial the complainant has proved and marked the documents as Exts 1 to 8 as per exhibit list. On the other hand, the O.P. did not adduce any evidence to its defence.
After conclusion of hearing, Ld. Forum delivered the impugned Final Order with observation that there was a deficiency of service on the part of postal authority and for that Rs.5000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost.
The Op No 1 &2 has not accepted the verdict of the Ld. Forum and challenged the same before this bench in the process of appeal U/S 15 of CP. Act, 1986, on the grounds that the actions of the concerned Postman regarding non delivery of the alleged registered letter are as per the Rules and Regulations of the department governing the related issues. The Appellants in its written version explained that the action taken by the Postman was at par with the Rules and Regulations governing the subject. The Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Malda seems to have failed to appreciate in its correct perspective that the action taken by the Postman was at par with the Rules and Regulation governing the subject.
The appeal was admitted in due course and after receiving notice of appeal, the complainant conducted the appeal personally.
WNA of both sides was furnished.
Ld. Senior Advocate/Senior council of Govt. of India Mr. U. Bhattacharya has conducted the hearing on behalf of appellants.
Decision with reason:-
After hearing both sides, it has come to the notice of the bench that the complainant has basically raised for allegation against the Post Man for not delivering the letter or article to the complainant and his family. The First allegation is that intimation slip in the have of the complainant dated 06.08.2011 service and handed over to the wife of complainant, but on the same time an article bearing No 4597 in the home of the complainant was refused to hand over the wife of complainant who has shown an authorization issued by her husband.
The second allegation is that letters addressed to the daughter of the complainant Arpita Ghosh dated 02.06.2012 was not handed over to her mother Nivedita, while Arpita was out of station for her job as Asst. Professor, at R.B.U., Kolkata.
The third allegation is a speed post item bearing EW 863965459 IN, in the name of complainant Manial Ghosh was refused to hand over to the wife of complainant is absence of him on 24.04.2015 while she was duty authorized.
Now, the bench shall have to look after whether such allegation was daily proved or not.
Ld. Advocate of the appellant, at the time of argument, pointed that in connection with the RL-4517 dated 06/08/2011 addressed to Arpita Ghosh, the daughter of the Complainant, it is stated that no authorization letter in the name of Smt Nibedita Ghosh (the mother of Arpita Ghosh) existed at that time and no authorization letter duly authenticated by the Postmaster, Malda Head Post Office was produced before the delivering Postman and hence the concerned Postman refused to deliver the registered letter to the person other than the addressee as per the rulings regarding the delivery of Registered Articles issued by the Department of Post. Ministry of Communication & IT Govt. of India vide No. 2-7/2009-P. O, dated 30/07/2009.
In connection with the RL dated 02/06/2012 addressed to Arpita Ghosh the daughter of the Complainant, it is stated that the duly authenticated authorization letter in favour of Smt Nibedita Ghosh (mother of Arpita Ghosh) was produced on 13/06/2012 which was beyond the delivery period of the article. As per existing rule the registered letter is kept for 7 days awaiting delivery to the addressee (i.e., up to 09/06/2012 for the RL dated 02/06/2012) and then the said RL is returned to the sender.
In connection with the speed post vide EW863965459IN addressed to Sri Mani Lal Ghosh was tried to be delivered on 29/04/2015 but as the door of the addressee was locked and none were present on that day, the intimation was served and the article was delivered on 30/04/2015. (A copy of said intimation is marked as Annexure C). Complainant did not mention the delivery date in his complaint.
Complainant in connection with the registered letter vid RW809732693IN addressed to Sri Mani Lal Ghosh was out for delivery on 09.08.2016, but no authorization letter was produced before the postman. The alleged authorization letter in favour of Nibedita Ghosh (on behalf of her husband Manilal Ghosh) bears the date 08/08/2012. As per Post Office guide Part 1 Rule 60 under the heading "Delivery of registered article etc. to messengers or to care party" under Sub Rule (4) (ii instruction received from addressee authoring the Pos Office to deliver articles or pay money orders to persons other than themselves should be treated as lapsed after a time limit of three years unless renewed within that time.
He further submits that the factions of the concerned Postman regarding non delivery of the alleged registered letter are as per the Rules and Regulations of the department governing the related issues. The Appellants in its written version explained that the action taken by the Postman was at par with the rules and regulations governing the subject.
Ld. Advocate in support his arguments relied upon the Judgement of Hon’ble Higher Forums as follows:
(i)S. C Judgement reported in 1990(3) Sec 223.
(ii)S.C. Judgement in 1998(9) Sec 707.
(iii)S.C. Judgement in 2006(9) Sec, 643.
The Respondent on his part at the time of argument mention that the order of Ld. Forum was based on actual Facts and circumstances and no error was there.
After bearing both sides, it is observed that the main allegation of the respondent confined to four Postal articles which was refused to deliver to the addressee or authorized person or addressee without any lawful excuse. Out of four, first two allegations about the postal article not delivered relating to dated 06.08.2011 and 02.06.2012 while the instant consumer complaint was registered in early part of 2017. No Explanation was there as to why after 05 years from the date of such event, the complainant raised the allegation for deficiency of service. Ld. Forum Perhaps overlooked this aspect.
Rather, in the event of non-delivery of personal item in the name of addressee Arpita Ghosh, in which the complainant took the button or Arpita to register the case, while it was not explained as to which course prompted Arpita not to take the recourse of Law to sue personally and she has not authorized her father to take step on behalf of her. Ld. forum also could not take the proper note over this matter.
In connection with the third allegation about the dispatch of speed post vide EW 8639654 59 IN in the home of Manilal Ghosh, though it was withheld to deliver for want of proper authorization on 24.04.2015, but it was ultimately delivered on 30.4.2015, when the process of proper authorization was completed.
Rather the complainant has suppressed, the material fact in his evidence as pleading that ultimately, he received the said item Just on next day and that has become established by Annexure.
Regarding Forth allegation is respect of Postal item bearing No vide RW 80973 26931 IN dated 08.08.2012 in the name of complainant Manilal Ghosh the postal Peon could not deliver the same to the address on 09.08.2016.
The defence of postal authority in this score is that the said item i.e., the registered letter could not be delivered as the authorization letter which was shown to him was carrying the date of 08.08.2012 which has already lapsed the authenticity of authorization after ellipse of 3 years sincedate of authorization.
So, after scrutinization of the evidences and on materialistic scanning, it is reflected that so many flaws and want of clean drawbacks are there in the case of the complainant. He did not come in clean hands. He seeks the equitable relief while he had own fault and suppression of fact on his part.
Ld. forum without considering all thing aspects has adjudicated the dispute, while the consumer Protection Act was legislated in order to Protect the interest of bonafide consumers. Forced imposition of charge upon an authority or person, leveled with deficiency of Service is not tenable in law and Justice delivery system does not encourage.
So, the appeal has got some merits.
Hence, it is ordered
That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest with-out cost. The Final order/ judgement of Ld. DCDRC Malda dated 25.09.2019 in CC No. 11 of 2017 stands set aside. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. DCDRC.
