IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 2/S/2016.                              DATED : 23.05.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI BANIBRATA BHOWAL alias MUNNA BHOWAL,

  S/O. Late Haripada Bhowal,

  R/O. Champasari More, Siliguri Municipal Corporation,   

  Ward No.46, P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.  Phone No. 94746 81231.     

O.Ps.              1.                      : POST MASTER GENERAL,

  Siliguri Head Post Office, Court More, 

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001. 

                                    2.                     : HEAD POST MASTER,

  Siliguri Head Post Office, Court More, 

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Ashis Das, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

The facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant sent a notice under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act to the address of Suman Chettri, S/O of Sri Chitta Ranjan Chettri, at Khaprail, Fulbari Basti, P.O.- New Chamta, P.S.- Matigara, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 009 through his Ld. Advocate by Registered Post with A/D on 20.11.2015 from the Head Post Office, Siliguri i.e., from the Office of the OPs, but till date the sender did not receive the acknowledgement card and no report in respect of delivery of the said notice is received from the OPs.  On 02.12.2015 the Ld. Advocate of the complainant sent a letter to the OP No.2 requesting him to inform the status of the said registered envelop but the OP No.2 did not respond to the said letter.  Thereafter, on 18.12.2015 the Ld. Advocate of the complainant again requested the OP No.2 by sending a letter to inform the delivery report of the said envelop and also stated that due to non-receive of A/D card, or the delivery report of the registered envelop, the complainant could not take any legal steps against the addressee under N.I. Act, within the limitation period.  It is also noticed to the OPs that if the complainant suffers any loss and injury due to non-cooperation of the​ OPs, in that case the OPs shall be liable to pay for all the loss and injuries to the complainant.  Even after receipt of the said notice, the OPs did not bother to reply or inform the status of the above registered envelop dated 20.11.2015 sent to the address of Suman Chettri. 

Due to latches and negligence of the OPs the complainant failed to file the case under Section 138 N.I. Act, against Suman Chettri to recover the debt of Rs.6,00,000/- as the limitation period to file the case under the Provision of N.I. Act against Suman Chettri was over.

It has been asserted by the complainant that once again the complainant visited the office of the OPs to know the delivery report of the registered envelop dated 20.11.2015, he became a shuttle cock from this table to that table at the office of the OPs and the OPs misbehaved with the complainant and due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony.  Accordingly, complainant filed the instant case for awarding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- out of which Rs.6,00,000/- is only for debt/cheque amount and Rs.4,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and cost of the case. 

The OP Nos.1 & 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint has been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable.  It has been stated by the OPs that the letter in question was booked on 20.11.2015 at Siliguri Head Post Office and thereafter it was despatched to Sukna Sub-Post Office Vide Bag No.RWB0006286688 on the same date of booking and the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 23.11.2015 from New Chamta B.O. under Sukna Post Office.  The A/D card was delivered in due course of time to the sender of the registered letter.  The OPs have further submitted that result of article booked under Registered Post or under Speed Post was/is available online website on www.indiapost.gov.in.  The track report from online website referred to above are admitted and accepted in all courts Tribunals and other authorities.  It is pertinent to mention that when A/D card was delivered to the sender in respect of registered article, but after due service to the addressee the Post Office does not have any rule to obtain/collect the signature of the sender and taking that advantage the complainant has falsely stated that he did not receive the acknowledgement card.  The OPs have further submitted that result of article booked under registered post is available online/website on www.indiapost.gov.in and the track report admitted and accepted in all courts tribunals and other authorities.  The complainant for his own lapse and negligence did not choose to obtain the track result of the subject registered letter from online website and did not choose to take legal steps for filing​ case under N. I. Act or under any provision of law within the period of limitation and has filed the present case with false, fabricated and manufactured grounds against the OPs for his wrongful gain.  It has been further submitted by the OPs that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.              

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Photo copy of Notice dated 20.11.2015 address to Sri Suman Chettri, Son of Sri Chitta Ranjan Chettri.

2.       Photo copy of Postal Receipt. 

3.       Photo Copy of Cheque.

4.       Photo Copy of letter dated 02.12.2015 to the OP No.2.

5.       Photo Copy of letter dated 18.12.2015 to the OP No.2.

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

OPs have filed evidence-in-chief.

          OPs have filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

The specific case of the complainant is that he intended to file a case against one Suman Chettri under 138 N. I. Act, and as such he sent a notice through his ld. lawyer to Suman Chettri at his address at Khaprail, Fulbari Basti, P.O.- New Chamta, P.S.- Matigara, on 20.11.2015 by registered post with an acknowledgement card through the Head Post Office, Siliguri i.e., from the office of the OPs but till date his advocate did not receive acknowledgement card or any reply as to the status of the said registered envelop.  The Ld. Advocate of the complainant by letter dated 02.12.2015 requested the OP No.2 to inform him about the status of the said registered envelop, but the OP No.2 did not bother to send any reply.  By another letter dated 18.12.2015 the ld. advocate of the complainant requested the OP No.2 to inform the delivery report of the said registered envelope and notice that due to non receive of A/D card or delivery report of the said registered envelop, the complainant could not take any legal step against the addressee Suman Chettri within the limitation period of N.I. Act and in the said letter it was stated that if the complainant suffers any loss and injury due to non-cooperation of the OPs, the OPs shall be liable to pay all the loss and injuries.  But even after receipt of the said notice, the OPs did not think it necessary to inform the status of the said registered envelop and due to latches, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has failed to file the case against Suman Chettri for recovery of the debt of Rs.6,00,000/- as the limitation period was over under the Provision of N.I. Act.

It has been contended by the OPs that the registered letter which was booked on 20.11.2015 at Siliguri Head Post Office by the advocate of the complainant was duly delivered to the addressee on 23.11.2015 from New Chamta B.O. under Sukna Sub-Post Office and the connected A/D card was also delivered to the sender in due course of time, but the Post Office does not have any rule to obtain/collect the signature of the sender and taking that advantage, the complainant has denied that he did not receive the acknowledgement card.  It has been further contended by the OPs that the result of article booked under registered post was/is available online website on www.indiapost.gov.in and the track report from online/website referred to above are admitted and accepted in all courts/tribunals and other authorities.  But the complainant for his own lapses and negligence did not choose to obtain track result of the disputed registered letter from online website for filing the case under N.I. Act or any other provision of law within the period of limitation and filed this case with ulterior motive for his wrongful gain.

It is not disputed that the Ld. Advocate of the complainant wrote consecutive two letters dated 02.12.2015 & 18.12.2015 respectively to the OPs to know the status of the postal envelop which was sent on 20.11.2015 from the Post Office of the OP, but the OPs did not think it necessary to give reply to the said letters.  If we hold for argument’s sake that the registered envelop was issued to the addressee on 23.11.2015, then OP could inform the complainant the date of service of the registered envelop, but from the four corners of the evidence of the OPs we do not find any materials to hold that the OPs in writing reported the complainant or his advocate though the registered envelop was issued to the addressee on 23.11.2015.    

The OPs have the responsibility to see that the acknowledgement card was duly delivered to the complainant/his advocate and till this case is filed before this Forum, the OPs had not informed the complainant about the status of the notice sent through registered post.  Thus this District Forum is of the view that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and in their failure to take steps to get the acknowledgement card delivered to the complainant’s advocate.

​On account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 in the matter of non-delivery of the acknowledgement card, the complainant has suffered mental tension which this Forum has taken into consideration and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- to be paid by the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally to the complainant.

So, far claim of compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against debt/cheque which is allegedly dishonoured by the bank, complainant has miserably failed to bring on record any material in support of his claim.  If we hold that the so called A/D card was not reached to the complainant or his advocate, the complainant could collect the result of article booked under registered post which was/is available online website on www.indiapost.gov.in for filing his case within the limitation period.  But complainant instead to doing that has made claim without any basis against the OP.  So, we are not in a position to assess any loss or damage caused to the complainant for which he is entitled to any compensation. 

In the result, the case succeeds in part.

Hence, it is          

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.2/S/2016 is allowed on contest in part against the OPs. 

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- from the OPs.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till full payment. 

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.