Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1164/2014

MEHVISH KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

`DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 1164/14

 

Mehvish Khan

Office at 32B, JP Complex, 1^st Floor 102

Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi – 110 091                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Post Master General

Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road, New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. Public Grievance (PG) Division

Postal Dirctorate, New Delhi – 110 001

 

3. Deputy Director Genral (PG & QA)

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi

 

4. The Post Master

Post Office – Patpargang, S.O.

Pin – 110 091                                                                                  ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 12.01.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 21.09.2016

Judgment Passed on : 17.10.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint pertains to allegations of deficiency in service by Ms. Mahvish Khan, the complainant against the Post Master General & Ors. (OP-1) thereby praying for Rs. 10,000/- as travelling expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2.        Facts in brief are that the complainant had sent a letter to the Registrar, University of Jammu, via speed Post No. ED524337122IN dated 17.11.2014 from OP-4.  It is stated that the said letter was an application form for UGC-NET examination.  The complainant has further stated that the said letter was delivered to Kashmir University.  As the last date of depositing the application form was 25.11.2014, the complainant was forced to complete the formalities afresh.  Feeling aggrieved, complainant sent legal notice dated 29.11.2014 to OP-1 and OP-3.  The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum when her grievance was not addressed by either of the OPs. 

3.        Notice of the complaint was duly served and OP filed their written version.  It was admitted that the complainant had booked an article and mis-sorting was totally mechanical error.  It was further admitted that article booked by complainant was delivered to Kashmir University, instead of Jammu University.  At the same time, it was also stated by OP that they were protected by 5-6 of Indian Post Office Act, so they cannot be held liable for deficiency unless a specific allegation of fraud or wilful act is alleged and proved.

            Thereafter, complainant was directed to file rejoinder and evidence, however, complainant did not file her rejoinder/evidence despite several opportunities.  OP filed their evidence by way of affidavit and examined Binti Choudhary, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi, East division, who reaffirmed the submissions made in their written statement.  However, complainant has not filed any evidence.

Since, the complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of her complaint, her allegations cannot be said to be proved.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on the part of Post Office (OP-1).

6.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President