Haryana

Kaithal

CC/13/2022

Rajender Singh Chahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Postal Department - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

                         

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 13 of 2022.

                                                               Date of institution:    17.01.2022.

                                                               Date of decision:      08.01.2024.

 

Rajender Singh Chahal s/o late Shri Abhay Ram, r/o village Haripura, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. Postal Department Kaithal through its Sub Postmaster, Kaithal.
2. Postal Department Head Office at Kurukshetra through its Postmaster, Kurukshetra, Tehsil and District Kurukshetra.
3. The then Superintendent of Police Kaithal Shri Shashank Kumar Sawan IPS now posted Panipat.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Suresh Kumar, SPM Kaithal MDG for Opposite Parties No.1                    & 2.

                   Opposite Party No.3 given up.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint by the complainant that on 28.05.2019, he sent a complaint to S.P. Kaithal i.e. OP No.3 by Speed Post, through OPs No.1 & 2, vide receipt No.EH594848922IN dated 28.05.2019. That when after passing more time, he inquired about the proceeding of his complaint in OP No.3, then they did not give any information to him and due to Covid-19 he could not enquire about his complaint. Thereafter, on 29.11.2021, he moved an application to DSP Kaithal under RTI Act vide receipt No.664 and Diary No.1006 dated 29.11.2021, upon which, he received information through RTI vide letter No.3583/RTI dated 22.12.2021, wherein, at Point No.2, it was written that the record of complaint dated 26.05.2019 is not available in P.S. Civil Line Kaithal, whereas, he had not given his complaint to Civil Line Kaithal. After that, he moved an application to Sub Post Master Kaithal i.e. OP No.1 about inquiry of his letter, by moving an application dated 23.12.2021 and OP No.1 gave reply on 23.12.2021 under Diary No.512 dated 23.12.2021, mentioning therein that the record is not available, because, the security of record of speed post is secured in their office till six months. His complaint was cognizable offence u/s 67 of I.T. Act, but due to negligence service of all OPs, FIR could not be lodged against the accused and all the OPs have saved the accused from legal punishment due to their negligence in service. The above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment and mental agony, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.             Upon notice of complaint, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission and filed their written statement, whereas, on 24.01.2022, OP No.3 has been given up by the complainant being unnecessary.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement stated that the Department of Posts is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Legal responsibility of the Post Office as per Post Office Guide Part-1 Clause -84 which reads as under:-

          “The Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all responsibility in case of loss, mis delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post”. India Post Office Act is a direct Parliamentary legislation and is in force since 1898.

5.                As per Para 1.6 (8) of Compendium on preservation and disposal of records, the period of preservation of records for speed post articles is of six months. Hence, the present complaint against OPs is not admissible as this is a time barred case. It is admitted that Sub Postmaster Kaithal received an application on 23.12.2021 from complainant for the enquiry of article No.EH594848922IN. The complainant was replied vide SPM Kaithal letter No.512/23/12/21 dated 23.12.2021 that as per Postal Manual Volume 6 and Postal Directorate Letter No.32/121/99-BDD dated 26.04.2022, the  preservation period of record relating to speed post articles is of 6 months. The article under reference was booked on 28.05.2019 and the complainant submitted application for inquiry of article on 23.12.2021, therefore, no information was available regarding the said article and same was intimated to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.  

6.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7.

7.                On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2.

8.                We have heard the complainant and representative for OPs No.1 & 2 and perused the record carefully.

9.                Complainant has argued that on 28.05.2019, he sent a complaint to S.P. Kaithal i.e. OP No.3 by Speed Post, through OPs No.1 & 2, vide receipt No.EH594848922IN dated 28.05.2019. He further argued that when after passing more time, he inquired about the proceeding of his complaint in OP No.3, then they did not give any information to him and due to Covid-19 he could not enquire about his complaint and thereafter, on 29.11.2021, he moved an application to DSP Kaithal under RTI Act vide receipt No.664 and Diary No.1006 dated 29.11.2021, upon which, he received information through RTI vide letter No.3583/RTI dated 22.12.2021, wherein, at Point No.2, it was written that the record of complaint dated 26.05.2019 is not available in P.S. Civil Line Kaithal, whereas, he had not given his complaint to Civil Line Kaithal. He further argued that after that, he moved an application to Sub Post Master Kaithal i.e. OP No.1 about inquiry of his letter, by moving an application dated 23.12.2021 and OP No.1 gave reply on 23.12.2021 under Diary No.512 dated 23.12.2021, mentioning therein that the record is not available. The security of record of speed post is secured in their office till six months. He further argued that his complaint was cognizable offence u/s 67 of I.T. Act, but due to negligence service of all OPs, FIR could not be lodged against the accused and all the OPs have saved the accused from legal punishment due to their negligence in service and the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Post Office, Hisar Vs. Dilwan Singh, Date of Decision 19.09.2018 (NC) and Dr. Ravi Agarwal Vs.  Speed Post, Rajasthan University, Date of Decision 13.02.2019 (NC).

10.              On the other hand, representative for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that the Department of Posts is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. He further argued that as per Para 1.6 (8) of Compendium on preservation and disposal of records, the period of preservation of records for speed post articles is of six months, hence, the present complaint against OPs is not admissible as this is a time barred case. He further argued that it is admitted fact that Sub Postmaster Kaithal received an application on 23.12.2021 from complainant for the enquiry of article No.EH594848922IN and the complainant was replied vide SPM Kaithal letter No.512/23/12/21 dated 23.12.2021 that as per Postal Manual Volume 6 and Postal Directorate Letter No.32/121/99-BDD dated 26.04.2022, the preservation period of record relating to speed post articles is of 6 months. He further argued that the article under reference was booked on 28.05.2019 and the complainant submitted application for inquiry of article on 23.12.2021, therefore, no information was available regarding the said article and same was intimated to the complainant, hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 

11.              Complainant has alleged that on 28.05.2019, he sent a complaint to S.P. Kaithal i.e. OP No.3 Annexure C-3, by Speed Post, through OPs No.1 & 2, vide receipt No.EH594848922IN dated 28.05.2019 Annexure C-4, but due to Covid-19, he could not enquired about his above complaint.

12.              He further argued that thereafter, on 29.11.2021, he moved an application to DSP Kaithal under RTI Act Annexure C-1, vide receipt No.664 and Diary No.1006 dated 29.11.2021 Annexure C-2, upon which, he received information through RTI vide letter No.3583/RTI dated 22.12.2021 Annexure C-5, wherein, at Point No.2, it was written that “the record of complaint dated 26.05.2019 is not available in P.S. Civil Line Kaithal”.

13.              He further argued that after that, he moved an application to Sub Post Master Kaithal i.e. OP No.1, about inquiry of his letter, by moving an application dated 23.12.2021 Annexure C-6, who gave reply on 23.12.2021 under Diary No.512 dated 23.12.2021 Annexure C-7, mentioning therein that the record is not available with them, because the security of record of speed post is secured in their office till six months. He lastly alleged that his complaint was cognizable offence u/s 67 of I.T. Act, but due to negligence service of all OPs, FIR could not be lodged, against the accused and all the OPs have saved the accused from legal punishment due to their negligence in service.

14.              Contrary to it, representative for OPs No.1 & 2 has contended that the article under reference was booked on 28.05.2019 by the complainant and the complainant submitted application for inquiry of article on 23.12.2021, therefore, no information was available regarding the said article, because, as per Postal Manual Volume 6 and Postal Directorate Letter No.32/121/99-BDD dated 26.04.2022, the preservation period of record relating to speed post articles is of 6 months. In t his regard, he drawn attention of this Commission towards “Compendium on Preservation and Disposal of Records” as Mark-A, wherein, in Column No.1.6 “Speed Post”, Sr. No.4 to 6 i.e. Speed Post Abstract, Speed Post Delivery Bill and Speed Post Mail List, the time frame to preserve the data of the same is mentioned “6 months”.

15.              It is admitted fact that the complainant sent a complaint to S.P. Kaithal OP No.3 by Speed Post, through OPs No.1 & 2 on 28.05.2019 vide receipt No.EH594848922IN dated 28.05.2019, therefore, as per above Clause 1.6 Speed Post of Mark-A, the data of said speed post was preserved with OPs No.1 & 2 for six months i.e. up-till 28.11.2019, but the complainant had demanded the data of said speed post, from OPs No.1 & 2, by moving an application on 23.12.2021 (Annexure C-6) i.e. after more than 2½ years and due to lapse of 6 months period, the data of said speed post was not available with OPs No.1 & 2 and the same fact has been communicated by OPs No.1 & 2 to the complainant through letter Annexure R-2.

16.              Complainant alleged that due to Covid-19, he could not enquire about his complaint, but this contention of complainant has no force, because the complainant sent the complaint to OP No.3 by Speed Post, through OPs No.1 & 2 on 28.05.2019, and counting the period of six months of preservation of data of said speed post in question, with OPs No.1 & 2, it expires on 28.11.2019 and at that time, there was no Covid in India, because the first wave of Covid-19 come into India in March 2020 and the complainant approached the OPs No.1 & 2 very first time regarding knowing the status of said speed post on 23.12.2021, by moving an application (Annexure C-6) i.e. after more than 2½ years, from the date of sending the said speed post to OP No.3 on 28.05.2019. For his own carelessness or negligence, the complainant cannot blame the OPs.

17.              Moreover, as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Posts is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, which reads as under:-

          “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason 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 hereinafter provided; and no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any loss, mis delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default”.

18.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service, on the part of OPs. Complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed. The case laws, produced by the complainant, are not applicable to the case in hand, being rested on different footings.

19.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, we found no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:08.01.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.