DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 407/15
Shri Subodh Gupta
Director of Hemsupra Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
R/o 301, Gupta Arcade
Shrrestha Vihar, Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainant
Vs.
- Post Office
Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051
- NHPC Ltd.
Tanakpur Power Station
Banabassa, Champawat ….Opponents
Date of Institution:06.07.2015
Judgment Reserved for : 15.09.2016
Judgment Passed on : 16.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Subhash Gupta has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against Post Office (OP-1) and NHPC Ltd. (OP-2).
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant participated in a tender floated by Hydro Electric Project situated at Banbassa, Champawat, against their NIT No. TP/Proc./2013/2319/2243 dated 14.11.2013, due on 7.12.2013 for approximate value of Rs. 6,00,000/-. He sent DD No. 255457 for Rs. 11,000/-; DD No. 255456 for Rs. 568/-; confidential price bid; confidential bank details in ECS forms,; confidential information regarding income tax and vat and technical literature of the items quoted by the complainant in a sealed envelope, which was sent to Manager-Purchase of OP-2 vide speed post docket no. ED331647067IN dated 02.12.2013 through OP-1. When he enquired from OP-2 in the month of April 2014, the complainant was informed that they have not received the said envelope. When delivery status was checked, it was found that the envelope reached at wrong location Gondur. On seeing the status report, the complainant made a complaint on 02.05.2014 to Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle to direct SSPOs, Delhi (East division) through his letter of dated 23.06.2014 to redress the complaint of the complainant. Chief Post Master General also, through his letter no. BDM-QS/05-76/DA-5/2014 dated 07.07.2014 asked Manger – Speed Post, Dehradun to enquire.
It has further been stated that on 18.07.2014, Senior Superintendent of Post, vide their complaint Settled Reply No. 110000-20615 dated 18.07.2014 informed the complainant that the complaint has been settled and the said article has been delivered on 16.07.2014 by Delhi GPO. He informed this to Manager – NHPC, Banbassa, about delivery confirmation of OP-1, denied the said receipt. On 25.07.2014, he again made a complaint to Chief Post Master General with intimation to SSP (East). On his complaint, Chief Post Master General vide his letter of dated 10.09.2014, directed SSP (East Delhi) to look into the matter. On receiving the confirmation of delivery of his envelope from SSP (East), the complainant asked Manger of OP-2 to return his sealed envelope on 16.09.2014 vide speed post no. A RD 378909619 IN. He against sent a reminder to OP-2 on 10.11.2014 vide speed post no. A RD 378901204 IN dated 17.01.2015 vide speed post no. A RD 3815632544. On 27.02.2015, he sent legal notice. He also made a request to Branch Manager of SBI, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, to cancel the said Demand Drafts. Manager-Purchase, NHPC, Banbassa, Champawat, informed the complainant about non-receipt of docket vide their letter no. NH/TPS/P&C/2015/3833 dated 05.03.2015.
It has been stated that OP-2 has denied the delivery of docket, though, Delhi Circle has confirmd the delivery. Thus, it has been stated that the conduct of OPs has been highly illegal, uncalled, unwarranted and against the principles of natural justice. It has been stated that the complainant has suffered extreme mental agony, hence, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 568/-, which was the value of both DDs; Rs. 21,000/- (the tentative amount, which complainant could have earned); Rs. 25,000/- legal expenses and Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony.
3. Notice of the complaint was served on both OPs. OP-2 filed its written statement/reply, in which they have stated that the tender documents from the complainant were not received due to which the complainant did not participate in the said NIT. The post docket no. ED 331647067In dated 02.12.2013 alleged to be containing the tender documents has never been received by OP-2. It has further been stated that the complaint has neither alleged any cause of action nor claimed any relief against OP-2. The complainant was not a consumer of OP-2; they have not rendered any service, which suffers from any deficiency. Other pleas of the complainant have also been denied. No reply was filed on behalf of OP-1.
4. In support of its complaint, the complainant has not filed any evidence on affidavit. Not only that, he has not put the appearance since 02.12.2015. Evidence was filed on behalf of NHPC Ltd. (OP-2), who examined Shri Milin Kumar Jha, Deputy Manager-Electrical, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the reply. He has also got exhibited documents such as letter of authorisation (Ex. OP2W1/1), copies of NIT dated 14.11.2013, email dated 12.01.2014 and letter no. NH/TPS/P&C/2015/3893 dated 05.03.2015 (Ex. . OP2W1/2, . OP2W1/3 and . OP2W1/4) respectively.
5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2. However, the complainant has not appeared to argue. It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 that since the complainant has not examined himself on affidavit, his complaint cannot be said to be proved. It has further been argued on behalf of OP-2 that no relief was asked against them and the complainant was not a consumer in respect of OP-2.
The simple case of the complainant has been that the documents, which he has sent through post to NHPC Ltd. (OP-2) was not received by them as NHPC Ltd. (OP-2) have denied the same having received. The fact that documents are not received by NHPC Ltd. (OP-2), as stated by them, the complainant cannot said to be consumer of NHPC Ltd. (OP-2) as they have not provided any service to the complainant. As far as, post office Krishna Nagar (OP-1) was concerned to fasten their liability, the complainant has not filed his evidence on affidavit in support of his complaint. Since, the complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of his complaint, his 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 Post Office (OP-1) and NHPC Ltd. (OP-2). Hence, his 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
