Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/651/2012

Ravish Kumar s/o Sh.Shayam Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Postman - Opp.Party(s)

None

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 851  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 15.06.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 14.03.2016.

Ravish Kumar son of Shri Shayam Singh, resident of Village Barheri, P.O. Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Rakesh Postman at present posted at Post Office Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Yamuna Nagar.  
3. Post Master, General, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.   

              OP No.1 in person.

  None for OPs No.2 & 3. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Ravish Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to provide better services in the village Barheri, Post Office Mandhar or to transfer the OP No.1 from Post Office Mandhar to some other station and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 16.01.2012, the Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra sent a letter to the complainant through speed post bearing No. EH 43865559 5IN dated 16.1.2012 and the same was delivered by OP No.1 to the complainant on 15.02.2012 after expiry of one month whereas as per rule and regulation of the postal authority a speed post letter should be delivered to the person concerned within 18 hours from the date of receipt of letter by the postal authority but due to sole negligence and deficient service of the OPs, the aforesaid letter could not be delivered to the complainant within time and due to non-receipt of letter he could not fill up the form of re-appear/rechecking and his one year has been wasted. Similarly, H.D.F.C Bank Chandigarh also dispatched a letter upon the complainant on 02.02.2012 vide EM No. 122122180 dated 02.02.2012 but the same has not been received by the complainant till today and due to that  the complainant has also suffered a great mental agony and physical harassment as well as economic loss. Hence, this complaint.

                        Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement on behalf of OP No.1 & 3 and while filing the written statement took the preliminary objections that section 6 exempts post office from any liability for loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transaction by post except to such extent, as the liability may be under taken by the Govt. in express terms. This section is equally applicable to the articles sent by Speed Post for which provisions have been made under Indian Post Office Act-1898. The Central Govt. is empowered to make rules as to the Registered Mail/Speed Post and the manner of delivery etc. The relevant rules relating to the instant complaint are broadly discussed in the orders dated 18.09.2002 of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. The complaint is not maintainable. By providing the facility to the general public, the department of posts accepts the charges, for the articles transmitted through post, in nature of charges imposed by the State for enjoyment of the facility provided by the department of post and not as consideration of any commercial contract. Speed post service is one of the several services provided by the department of post. The only special provision made in the service is money back guarantee under which certain amount of compensation or charges paid for sending the articles are refunded in case of loss or delay in delivery of the article beyond published norms of delivery under departmental rules under normal instances. On merit, it has been submitted that one speed post article No. EH438655595 IN was received at Mandhar BO on 21.01.2012 from Radaur Sub Post Office. The addressee Sh. Ravish Kumar was not available at his home so that the said article was delivered to the addressee’s brother i.e. Mr. Vikash after getting his signature on the delivery slip. It has been admitted that one speed post article No. EM122122180IN was received at Mandhar BO on 14.2.2012 and the same was returned to its sender with remark “incomplete address of addressee” As such, there is no negligence or deficiency in service at the booking and delivery point. However, question to pay any compensation to the complainant does not arise and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     Both the parties failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court on 27.01.2016 and 10.03.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copies of envelopes as Annexure C-1 & C-2, Photo copies of application regarding complaint against Rakesh Postmaster as Annexure C-3 & C-4, Photo copy of postal receipts as annexure C-5 & C-6, Photo copy of result cum detailed mark card as Annexure C-7 with the complaint in support of his complaint.

6.                     On the other hand, at the time of filing of reply OPs filed copy of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 as Annexure R-1.

7.                     We have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The main plea of the complainant is that he received letter bearing No. EH 43865559 5IN dated 16.1.2012 on 15.02.2012 after expiry of one month and another letter bearing No. EM No. 122122180 dated 02.02.2012 has not been received by the complainant so far.  Which is great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.                     After going through the contention raised by the complainant, we are of the considered view that the complainant does not come in the definition of consumer as he failed to receive the letter sent by the Kurukushtra University Kurukshetra  in time and another letter from HDFC Bank Chandigarh sent to him through speed post bearing No. EH 43865559 5IN dated 16.1.2012 and No. EM No. 122122180 dated 02.02.2012 and he has not hired the services of OPs by paying any monetary charges. In case the complainant has made any payment to the OPs for hiring their services then he would come in the definition of Consumer but in the present complaint he did not do so.

                        The term of consumer has been defined under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act 1986 which reads as under:

                        “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)                    buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

                        (ii)       [ hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

                        [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”

9.                     In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint of the complainant does not come in the definition of Consumer Protection Act as he has not hired the services of OPs after paying any charges.  

10.                   Further the complainant failed to file any cogent evidence i.e. affidavit of any neighbourer or any respectable persons of his village regarding the defective services of the OP No.1 and even has not disclosed in his complaint that what was the grievances between the complainant and OP No.1 and in the absence of any specific allegations OPs No.2 & 3 cannot be held liable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 wherein it has been mentioned reproduced as under:

                        6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.

                        The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may to express terms be undertaken by the central government as hereinafter provided, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

11.                   In the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled for any relief being no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for taking suitable action against the OPs, if so desired. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 14.3.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER