Delhi

North East

CC/460/2014

Amit Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office of India - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 460/14

 

In the matter of:

		Amit Kumar S/o Rajender Kumar A-3/106, Nand Nagri Delhi -110093.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.	Post Office of India Near BSES office C-1 Block Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.   Indira Gandhi National Open University IGNOU Head Quarters Maidan Garhi  New Delhi-110068.   Senior Superintendent of Post Office Delhi East Division, Delhi-110051.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :		20.11.2014 20.02.2020 20.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint are that the complainant had enrolled with OP2 for MA (Economics) Degree Course in January 2014 session on payment of Rs. 6,000/- made to OP2 and was issued enrolment certificate No. 141845375 and identity card bearing enrolment No. 2914101023 for the said course. The said amount also included the cost of study material to be supplied by OP2 through OP1 for the said course as per policy of OP2. However, OP2 did not provide the course books code 01, 02 and 03 to the complainant and only provided course books of code 105 and 04 required for the stream taken by the complainant. Complainant went to OP2 after having waited for the unsupplied books but OP2 merely handed over postal dispatch status report to the complainant for the said study material vide postal dispatch     No. CQ000000442IN with date of dispatch shown as 05.02.2014 for the study material MEC1, MEC2 and MEC3 and asked him to check the status of delivery from postal department. The complainant went to OP1 with query for the unsupplied books in question but OP1 did not pay any heed or made any inquiry into the unsupplied aforesaid books despite complainant’s repeated requests that the last date of submission of assignment was approaching and without the said books he could not be eligible to submit the said assignment but OPs gave no response. The complainant issued a letter dated 07.08.2014 to OP2 as a written complaint for non supply of the study material and response received from OP1 in that regard but the said is also went unheeded to. Lastly complainant sent legal notices and reminder notices to all OPs dated 13.08.2014, 20.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 but all such notices went unresponded to by OPs. Therefore as a last resort, the complainant filed the present complaint against OPs praying for issuance of directions for them to supply course code books of 01, 02 and 03 alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and wastage of one year and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.  

Complainant has attached copy of acknowledgment card and ID issued by OP2 in favour of the complainant, copy of study material dispatched status report issued by OP2 for January 2014 session of MA Economies course books MEC1, MEC2, MEC3, MEC4 and MEC5 dispatched on 05.02.2014, copy of complaint dated 07.08.2014 by complainant to OP2 duly received by OP2 under its stamp and seal and copy of legal notices dated 13.08.2014, 20.08.2014 and 24.09.2014 to all OPs through complainant’s counsel with postal receipts.

2. Notice was issued to all OPs on 26.11.2014. All OPs entered appearance. OP1 and OP3 filed joint written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection that the present complaint is not a consumer dispute in view of no privity of contract between complainant and the OPs and the complaint was also otherwise barred under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898. OPs resisted the complaint on grounds that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and also failed to provide the dispatch number of the alleged non delivery of books of code no. 01, 02 and 03 and therefore can be inferred that the same were never booked for dispatch. Despite this allegation, complainant never approached the OPs with the dispatch details for redressal of his grievance and therefore cannot alleged any deficiency of service on the part of OPs. OPs took the defence that the books in question to be supplied by OP2 were never provided to the answering OPs since OP2 failed to provide their dispatch status. OPs are denying having assured the complainant to supply the course books to him at the earliest. OPs admitted to complainant’s own admission that the books of course code 015 and 04 were supplied but denied OP2 not having supplied the books of course code in question since the same were never provided by OP2 to OP1 and OP3 to deliver to the complainant. Lastly OPs urged that there is no fault on their part for the alleged non delivery course books in question and prayed for dismissal of the complaint for non entitlement of complainant to any relief as prayed therein. OPs has attached copy of study material dispatched status, copy of delivery slip of parcel department highlighting delivery of both consignments under receiving / signature of the complainant on 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014, copy of Gazette Notification dated 21.01.1999 issued by Department of Post, Ministry of Communication highlighting Rule 3 for delay or loss of delivery of Domestic speed post articles and representation dated 01.04.2015 to this Forum by OP3 informing that the entire study material of complainant had been sent through it on 05.02.2014 and received by OP1 on 11.02.2014 and deliver to the complainant on the same day under proper receipt. 

OP2 filed its written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection that the as per the tracking record available on the website of OP1 and OP3 where it was found that both the packets of study material sent by OP2 containing study material of MEC program were delivered vide Bar Code No. CQ0000002559IN and CQ000000442IN. OP2 urged that if the complainant had not received the books consignment from OP2 which was duly dispatched by OP2, OP2 cannot be held responsible for non delivery of books as OP2 has given clear directions to all its students that in case of non receipt of any study material, the same could be obtain from its Regional Centers but complainant did not make any effort to procure the same or apply for study material as mentioned in clause 6.13 of Common Prospectus and instead filed the present complaint claiming exaggerated compensation despite OPs having made all possible efforts to satisfy the queries of the complainant. OP2 alleged that the complainant failed to go through the Common Prospectus as well information available in the official website of OP available in the student zone namely www.ignou.ac.in. OP2 denied having not supplied the books of course code 01, 02 and 03 and relied upon the tracking record available on website of OP1 and OP3 showing all study materials having being delivered on 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 particularly consignment No. CQ000000442IN which was delivered on 12.02.2014. Therefore OP2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint on grounds of it being false, frivolous, afterthought and misconceived. OP2 has attached copy of delivery report / tracking report of deliver of both consignment dated 05.02.2014, 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 and copy of Common Prospectus highlighting clause 6.13 pertaining to study material and assignments and requirement in the event of non receipt of the same. 

3. Rejoinders to the written statement of OPs were filed by the complainant in rebuttal of defence taken by them respectively. Complainant submitted that he had not received the study material in question and OPs have neither submitted the delivery report nor the service report of the said books and prayed for relief claim due to inaction on the part of OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and exhibiting the documents relied upon as exhibit CW1/1 to CW1/2.
5.  Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by  OP1 and OP3 sworn by its AR and Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP2 sworn by its Registrar Administration vide which it exhibited the documents relied upon / filed alongwith written statement as Ex-RW1/1 to RW1/3.
6. Written arguments were filed by all parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance / defence and pleadings were completed by March 2018.  Thereafter, complainant did not appear for more than one year from May 2018 to May 2019 when he suddenly appeared on hearing held on 02.05.2019 and a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed on him to be submitted with Consumer Legal Aid for stagnating the matter at the advance stage of oral arguments for his continues non appearance and non prosecution. On next date of hearing i.e. 26.07.2019 complainant filed an application for placing on record copy of Re admission form submitted by him on 26.04.2019 with OP2 for MA Economics Course and payment slip of Rs. 4,050/- paid by him for study material MEC01, MEC03 and MEC04 each costing Rs. 1350/- paid vide DD No. 184027 dated 26.04.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank, IGNOU Branch, New Delhi. OP1 &OP3 filed reply thereto opposing the maintainability of the said application on grounds that MEC01, MEC02 and MEC03 were already sent to the complainant vide postal tracking code No. CQ000000442IN on 05.02.2014 and was delivered by OPs Nand Nagri, Delhi post office branch on 12.02.2014 and as per complainant’s own admission MEC04 and MEC105 were already delivered to him on 11.02.2014. OPs further stated that the issue or Re-admission with OP2 was between complainant and OP2 with which OP1 and OP3 had no concerned and that the complainant was not entitled to submit any documents at the stage of final arguments and ever otherwise there was no question of loss caused to him in view of all study material already delivered to him between 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 and therefore prayed for rejection of the application. OPs attached the proof of dispatched and delivery of study material.
7. We have heard the arguments addressed by all parties and have bestowed our anxious consideration to the documents placed on record by all parties in support of their respective stands taken.

As per the documentary evidence and pleadings placed before us, it stands established that the books of course code No. MEC01, MEC02, MEC03, MEC04 and MEC105 for January 2014 session were dispatched by OP2 through OP1 and OP3 on 05.02.2014 to the complainant’s address and as per the tracking report filed by all OPs, the said consignments were delivered on 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014. OP1 and OP3 have also placed on record the delivery slip of Parcel Department Nand Nagri, Delhi branch dated 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 under the stamp and seal of OP1 highlighting the consignment in question bearing signature of complainant under receiving (u/r). The complainant has not been able to rebut such conclusive evidence except harping of non delivery of the study material either not dispatched by OP2 or not delivered by OP1 and OP3 but such allegation is without any corroborative evidence placed on record. The non seriousness of the complainant is writ large from the fact that since 2014 till 2019, he made no efforts either to procure the study material from OP2 as per guidelines laid out in clause 6.13 of Common Prospectus or to even press his complaint before this Forum for entire one year after which a frivolous application was filed by him for placing on record proof of purchase of study material from OP2.

Nowhere in the complaint has the complainant alleged any fraud, willful act or default on the part of OPs specifically OP1 and OP3 which have been given immunity under Section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act 1890 which stipulates that the Government shall not  incur any liability by reasons of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may, in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Therefore the aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that if the damage is cause fraudulently or by willful act of default, only then the Government shall incur liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay in delivery of the postal article. The landmark judgments passed by Hon'ble National Commission in this regard are Head Post master, Post Office Railway Road, Kurukshetra Vs Vijay Ratan Aggarwal in RP No. 1006/2001 decided on 18.09.2002, Post Master GPO Vs Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat 1995 (2) CPR 267 (NC), Post Master, Imphal Vs Dr. Jamini Devi, Sagolband (2001) 1 CPJ 28 (NC), Director, Postal Services A&N Islands Vs Shyamali Ganguli 2004 (3) CPJ 60 (NC).Similar view was held by Hon'ble National Commission in Presidency Post Master Vs Dr. U. Shanker Rao 1993 (II) CPJ 141 (NC) in which the Hon'ble National Commission considered Section 6 of IPO Act and held petitions as not maintainable in view of no allegation of fraudulent or willful act alleged on any particular postal employee for loss, mis-delivery or delay. The Hon'ble National Commission in Ganesh Ram Raheja Vs Sr. Superintendent of Post Office 2002 (3) CPR 208 (NC) and Dharam Raj Rajinder Sood Vs B.N. Kondal 2001 (3) CPR 136 (NC) dismissed the complaint where the complainant had alleged that letter sent by registered post was not delivered but post office confirmed that it had been delivered. The Hon'ble National Commission in Sub Post Master, Tirupur Vs V. Ramakrishnan 1993 (II) CPJ 213 (NC) held that under Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act a claim for compensation will lie only if there has been deficiency in service and consequential loss occasioned by reason of negligence on the part of Opposite Party.

8. In light of the exhaustive legal discourse in the aforementioned Para and the settled proposition of law laid down therein by Hon'ble National Commission, complainant has been unable to fulfill or satisfy this Forum on maintainability of the complaint on any of the grounds mentioned in the case laws mentioned above in as much as no cogent proof of any fraud, willful act or default has been made by him against OP1 and OP3. On the contrary OP1 and OP3 have placed on record cogent documentary evidence admissible in law for proof of delivery of the consignments to the complainant under his receiving. In so far as OP2 is concerned, the Hon'ble National Commission in the latest judgment dated 20.01.2020 of Manu Solanki Vs Vinayaka Mission University in CC No. 261/2012 and several other connected matters on education has sealed the issue of education being no longer Res Integra and held that institutions rendering Education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre admission and post admission and also imparting Tours, Picnics, ECA, Swimming, Sports etc will not be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and put to rest the conflicting judgments in this regard past earlier. It further held that Education was not service within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(o) of CPA nor is student a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of CPA. Therefore, OP2 is outside the ambit of consumer protection act, it being a University.
9. Therefore in light of the observations and views held by this Forum guided by the settled law, we have no hesitation in holding that the present complaint is devoid of merits and so is the application filed by the complainant. We therefore dismiss the complaint (rendering the application infructuous) with no order as to costs.      
10.   Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  20.02.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member