1        The complainant Sh. Pritpal Singh Likhari filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Post Master, Post Office Tarn Taran, Govt. of India, Postal Department, New Delhi -Opposite Parties No. 1, 3 (O.Ps.) on the allegations of deficiency in service with further prayer to take legal action against opposite parties.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he sent registered letter to Opposite Parties through Post Department Tarn Taran on 27.12.2014 but due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, the same was not delivered to the addressee and was sent back to the complainant on 5.1.2015 which amounts to deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, prayer was made for taking legal action against the Opposite Parties . Hence the complaint was filed.

3        During the admission proceedings of the complaint, the complainant made statement relinquishing opposite parties No. 2 and 4 from the complaint and accordingly vide detailed order dated 19.2.2016, the complaint against opposite parties No. 2 and 4 was dismissed as withdrawn.

4        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and opposite parties No. 1 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and is not entitled to any relief and that complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and no cause of action has arisen in favour of complainant and complaint is also not legally maintainable in the present form; that the registered letter sent by the complainant was returned back to him as the said letter was refused as it was not having any specific name of the court for delivery and therefore, was delivered back to the complainant; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint and no relief by way of prayer cause has been mentioned in the complaint and as such complainant is not entitled to any relief and complaint deserves to be dismissed. On merits, it was asserted that complainant booked a registered letter No. RP4324743261IN at Tarn Taran on 27.12.2014 and as per remarks made by the postman on the registered letter, it was refused by the court as it was not having any specific name of the court and therefore, it was delivered back to the complainant on 5.1.2015 with the remarks of the postman as ‘refused’; that all efforts in due course of law were made by the Department for delivery of aforesaid letter to the addressee but it was returned back by the court and due to this reason, the registered letter was delivered back to the complainant; that registered letter No. RP4324743261IN was addressed to District and Sessions Judge District Courts Tarn Taran and Sh. Gurbir Singh is posted as District and Sessions court Amritsar where as there is no District and Sessions Judge posted at Tarn Taran District Courts on 27.12.2014 when the letter was booked by the complainant; that the complainant sent the registered letter to District and Sessions Judge District Courts Tarn Taran and the same was delivered back to complainant on 5.1.2015 as refused and as such answering opposite parties have nothing to do with the case in hand. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and not relevant and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.  

5        The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to C-10 and closed the evidence. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Jethmal Jinagar Ex. OPs 1, 3/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs 1, 3/2 to Ex. OPs 1,3/4 and closed the evidence. 

6        We have heard the complainant in-person and Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and have gone through the evidence and documents produced on the file by the parties.

7        The complainant contended that he sent registered letter to District and Sessions Judge Tarn Taran on 27.12.2014 but the same was returned to him on 5.1.2015 without its delivery to the addressee. He contended that the letter was not delivered to him personally and the daily postal sheet of the Department bears the signatures of the receiver of the letter but these signatures do not belong to him though he received the letter from some person. He also contended that many dates are mentioned on the registered letter but details regarding these dates are not given on the letter. He also contended that if the letter was refused then why postman was going again and again to the addressee because if the letter was refused once there was no need to go to the addressee again. He contended that the conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and it also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and opposite parties are required to be punished in accordance with law.

8        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that complainant booked a registered letter on 27.12.2014 for its delivery to the District and Sessions Judge Tarn Taran. He contended that the concerned postman took the letter to District Courts Tarn Taran for delivery of the letter but the letter was not received. He contended that postman immediately went to the District Court for delivery of letter but the later was not being received as name of court was not written and secondly the District and Sessions Judge was not posted at that time and lastly the letter was refused on 5.1.2015 and consequently the letter was returned to the sender/ complainant on 5.1.2015 and as such, there was no deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is false and frivolous and the opposite parties have been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation and as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. He contended that function of opposite parties- Post office is only to convey the letter to the addressee for its delivery and if the letter is refused then to return the same to its sender and in this eventuality there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He also contended that the complainant has arrayed postman Tarn Taran and Govt. of India Postal Department New Delhi India as Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3. He contended that both these Departments are under the control of Union of India and Opposite Party No. 1 Postman Tarn Taran is public officer under the Central Govt. and he has been arrayed in his official capacity and as per Section 80 of C.P.C., a prior notice is required to be served before initiating the legal proceedings against the public officer in his official capacity and Central Govt. He also contended that the Govt. of India is to be sued in the name of Union of India as is provided under Section 300 of Constitution of India, but complainant has not served any notice under Section 80 C.P.C. nor union of India is arrayed as party in the present complaint and as such complaint in the present form is not maintainable against Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. He also contended that complainant has not prayed for any relief in the complaint as provided in the Consumer Protection Act and has only stated that legal proceedings be initiated against the opposite parties and this relief has not been provided under the Consumer Protection Act which can be granted by the Consumer Protection Forum. He contended that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed to harass the Opposite Parties and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

9        It is the contention of the complainant that the complainant sent a registered letter through the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 but the said registered letter was not delivered to the addressee and rather was sent back to the complainant without its service and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He also contended that the opposite parties pleaded in the written version that the post of District and Sessions Judge Tarn Taran was not existing at that time and in this eventuality there was no need for the postman to visit the civil courts again and again because as per registered cover the post man visited the civil court for 3 or 4 times. It is also the contention of the complainant that the registered letter was not returned to him personally but he received the same from somebody and he did not sign postal sheet maintained by the postal Department and signatures appearing on this sheet seems to have been forged and as such legal proceedings be initiated against the opposite parties.

10      The function of the Post Department is that on receipt of a registered letter, it is to be conveyed to the addressee at the earliest and if the addressee is not available then to make efforts for adequate time in order to ensure service and if the service is refused then to return the registered letter to its sender. Now in the case in hand, the complainant posted the registered letter on 27.12.2014. The cover of the registered letter is proved on the file as Ex. OPs 1, 3/2. It shows that it has been addressed to District and Sessions Judge, District Courts, Tarn Taran. It is the specific plea of the opposite parties that post of District and Sessions Judge was not existing at that time but inspite of that the letter was presented before the Senior judicial officer posted at that time but the letter was not received on number of times as mentioned on the registered letter cover itself and then it was refused on 5.1.2015 and immediately, thereafter, it was returned to the complainant. Otherwise, complainant has not produced any evidence on the file that post of District and Sessions Judge was existing at Tarn Taran at that time. Postal sheet is proved on the file as Ex. OP 1, 3/.3 and it also shows that the addressee did not meet when the registered letter was taken to the civil courts and postal sheet Ex. OPs 1, 3/4 shows that it was returned to the complainant Pritpal Singh on 5.1.2015 because date 5.1.2015 is mentioned in the column No. 3 and 7 whereas the name of Pritpal Singh is written in column No. 6 and it shows that the letter was returned to Pritpal Singh on 5.1.2015. Moreover, even it is the case of the complainant as depicted in the complaint that letter was received by him on 5.1.2015. In the opinion of the of the Forum, the opposite parties had acted in speedy way as the letter was posted on 27.12.2014 and the registered cover proved on the file shows that it was presented in the Civil court first time on 29.12.2014 and then on 30.12.2014, 31.12.2014, 1.1.2015, 2.1.2015, 3.1.2015 and on 5.1.2015 and lastly on 5.1.2015, when it was refused then on the same day, it was returned to the complainant as the civil courts and house of the complainant is situated at Tarn Taran. In this eventuality, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3. Otherwise also, a prior notice under Section 80 CPC is required to be served on Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 as opposite party No. 1 is postman who has been arrayed in its official capacity and is a public officer whereas opposite party No. 3 is Govt. of India Post Department which is also a Govt. Office and as such a prior notice is required to be served on them before initiating any legal proceedings against them. It is required to save the time of the court as the matter can be solved by the concerned Department on receipt of complaint in the form of legal notice but the complainant has not issued any legal notice under Section 80 CPC against Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 and as such complaint against Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 is not maintainable. There is no force in the contention of complainant that if the office of District and Sessions Judge was not existing at the time when the registered letter was posted, there was no necessity to visit the civil court again and again because it is the endeavour of the postman to deliver the letter to the senior most Court but when same was not received after many visits and infact refused on 5.1.2015 then only, it was returned to its sender which rather shows that postman acted in most bonafide manner in order to achieve the positive result. Otherwise also, to initiate legal proceedings against Opposite Parties No. 1 & 3 in such like cases is not the function of Consumer Forum. Consumer Forum can grant the relief as provided under Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act and cannot provide any relief which is not mentioned in the consumer Protection Act.  Even otherwise, if addressee is available at the address even then the postman cannot compel the addressee to receive the letter and if the addressee refuse to receive the letter then the postman is to make the observation on the letter itself and to return it to the sender. Otherwise, in this case, the office of District and Sessions Judge was not in existing in Tarn Taran at the time of dispatch of letter.  Therefore, looking from any corner, the complaint is without merits and complainant is not entitled to any relief.