Orissa

Cuttak

CC/52/2023

Dr Sunil Kumar Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master,Head Post office,Sambalpur - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.52/2023

 

Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath,

S/o: Simanchal Rath,

Plot No.3C/876,Sector-10,CDA,

Cuttack-753014.                                                  ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

Post Master, Head Post Office,Sambalpur,

At:MunicipalityChowk,Nari Seva Sadana,

                  Sambalpur-768001

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    13.02.2023

Date of Order:  02.11.2023

 

For the complainant:           Self.

For the O.P:           Mr. B.B.Behera,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                  

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that a parcel was sent through speed post of the Postal Department bearing Endowment No.EO6051757561N dated 24.11.2022 to one Prabhasini Meher of Jharsuguda Talmal,Mungapada which was delivered to the addressee on 10.12.2022. It is thus alleged by the complainant that there was delay of 20 days whereas it should have been delivered within a day or two.  The postal charges were also paid promptly by the complainant but there was inordinate delay for about twenty days for which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment.  It is for this, the complainant had tried to contact the O.P many a times but had failed for which he hadsent legal notice to the O.P on 13.12.2022 and ultimately has come up with this case demanding refund from the O.P an amount of Rs.77/- as paid by him towards the speed post charges and further he has demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P towards compensation for deficiency in their service thereby causing mental agony and harassment to him.  He has further prayed for the cost of his litigation and also for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copy of the postal receipt showing the payment of Rs.76.70p towards the speed post charges, copy of the legal notice and the tracking report etc in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  According to the O.P, the complainant had neither booked or posted any article nor had he availed any service from the O.P.  One speed post parcel was booked at the Head Post Office, Sambalpur by one Khirasindhu Meher of Jhaduapada,Sambalpur on 24.11.2022 which was addressed to Prabhasini Meher of Jharsuguda Talmal,Mungapada and the same was delivered to the addressee Prabhasini Meher on 10.12.2022.  The person namely Khirasindhu Meher who had booked the speed post parcel had neither

lodged any complaint before the O.P nor had the addressee Prabhasini Meher filed any complain.  The present complainant is neither the sender nor the receiver of the said speed post parcel for which he is not a consumer under the definition of C.P.Act.  The said Khirasindhu Meher had submitted in writing through his letter dated 18.5.2023 that due to incomplete address, the delivery of parcel was delayed and hence he has no complaint in that.  It is for this, the O.P has urged through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed with cost.

          The O.P has also filed copies of certain documents alongwith his written version in order to support his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

Issues no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, that of the written version, the written notes of submissions filed from either sides and also after perusing copies of documents filed from either sides in this case, it is noticed that admittedly a speed post parcel was received by one Prabhasini Meher on 10.12.2022 which was booked for her from Sambalpur Head Post Office on 24.11.2022 as per the copies of documents available here in this case.  It is also noticed that the sender of the said speed post parcel at Sambalpur Head Post office was one Khirasindhu Meher and not the present complainant of this case.  The said sender Khirasindhu Meher has submitted in writing through his letter dated 18.5.2023 addressed to Head PostMaster,Sambalpur about the incomplete address as provided to be the reason for delivery of parcel at a delayed stage and that he has no complaint in the matter.  The said copy of the letter of the said Khirasindhu Meher has been marked as Annexure-R/2.   Annexure-R/1 is a letter from the Post Master,Sambalpur Head Post office addressed to the present complainant of this case dated 19.12.2022 specifying therein that the delay has occurred in transit due to incomplete address of the recipient of the article. 

Admittedly, here in this case as noticed, the complainant is not the sender of the parcel through speed-post, rather the sender, one Khirasindhu Meher who has mentioned in writing to have no grievance or complaint in the matter.  The complainant has not substantiated as to how he could be a beneficiary of the actual consumer here in this case.  When neither the actual consumer nor the actual beneficiary recipient have no grievance here in this case, the present complainant by filing this case has tilted our eye brows and as such this Commission is of opinion that there is no deficiency noticed on the part of the O.P as alleged by the complainant.  This issue is answered accordingly.

Issues no.ii& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 2^ndday of November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. 

                                                         

                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                  President

                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                   Member