Delhi

North East

CC/175/2015

Anita Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.175/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Anita Sharma W/o Kuber Nath Sharma R/o E-3/616, Street No.16, 4th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Post Master Head Office Bareilly, U.P-243001   Chief Post Master General, Postal Department, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party No.1         Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

18.05.15 17.01.23 21.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

                                                                    ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant           

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 24.07.11 Complainant and brother in law of Complainant was allotted a flat from U.P Development Authority on instalments. It was allotted under the Baba Saheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Scheme as they are under poverty line. The Complainant used to sends amount of instalments to her mother and she used to transfer that instalment to the government. After the denial for allotment of the flats, the Complainant sent a money order to her mother of Rs. 1,000/- through speed post dated 20.09.14 along with one speed post letter but on 25.09.14 and 27.09.14 the money order along with the above said letter was sent back to her. On speed post report of Opposite Party No.1, it was written that they have not found the address and on this statement the money order was returned. Due to non receiving of money order, her mother was unable to pay her instalments of flat so she had to take Rs. 10,000/- on interest and submitted the instalment and saved her allotment of flat. On 29.09.14, 18.11.14 and 19.12.14 she lodged complaint for which Opposite Party No.2 replied through letter on 10.12.14 and receive letters on several dates but she did not get any satisfactory response from Opposite Party. The Complainant sent money order and in spite of having the correct address the money order was returned due to which Complainant faced many problems. Hence this shows deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for compensation on account of deficiency in service and for mental harassment.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed written statements.  It is the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the speed post and money order were returned back to the Complainant because the address of the receiver was not found despite efforts. It has denied the averments made by the Complainant in the complaint. It is the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that at the given address no person with the name of the addressee was found. The Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement has stated that the money order and the speed post could not be delivered for the reason that the addressee was not found at the address.

Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Senior Superintendent in Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Ms. Binti Choudhary, Senior Superintendent in Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties. The case of the Complainant is that she had sent a speed post letter and money order of Rs. 1,000/- to her mother Smt. Devanti Devi on 20.09.14. Her case is that the said money order and speed post letter were returned to her. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the speed post and money order could not be delivered to the addressee Devanti Devi as she was not found at the address. Now the question is that whether the addressee Devanti Devi was residing or available at the given address on the relevant date. The Complainant has not filed any evidence to show that on the relevant date her mother was residing or was available at the given address. Even she has not filed the affidavit of her mother to show that her mother was residing or was available at the given address on the relevant date. It is also the case of the Complainant that as the money order could not be delivered to her mother so her mother had to take loan of Rs. 10,000/- on interest. The Complainant has not filed any evidence to show that due to non-delivery of the money order her mother had to take loan on interest.  Therefore, the assertions made by the Complainant in her complaint cannot be believed. The complaint is dismissed.  
7. Order announced on 21.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President