RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.631 of 2000

1- Union of India through Secretary,

     Ministry of Telecommunication,

     New Delhi.

2- Superintendent of Post Offices,

     Head Post Office, Deoria.                       ….Appellants.

Versus

Rambha Shahi w/o Sri Raghvendra Shahi,

R/o Village & Post: Vairone,

District: Deoria.                                           …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellants. 

Sri B.K. Upadhyay for the respondent.

Date   27.4.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Deoria in complaint case No.209 of 1999, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise they will suffer irreparable loss.

          Heard Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellants and Sri B.K. Upadhyay for the respondent and have perused the records in the light of their arguments.

(2)

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Smt. Rambha Shahi had sent 200 share certificates and other valuable documents to M/s Jayanti Business Machines Ltd. by registered post but the said registered post did not reach its destination. Consequently, the respondent/complainant filed complaint case no.209 of 1999 for redressal of her grievances on ground of deficiency in service. The appellants/OPs took the plea that the letter under dispute was despatched under Registery no.3757 on 31.3.1997 and the same was delivered to the addressee on 5.4.1997. It was received without any objections hence, there was no cause of action for the respondent/complaint to file the complaint case no.209 of 1999 as no complaint was ever lodged by the addressee relating to pilferage of the registered post. It was further contended that the aforesaid documents were allegedly sent uninsured which is not permissible under clause 170(1) of the Post Office Guide. The Forum below failed to pay due consideration on all these facts and passed the impugned order arbitrarily which is against all settled principles of law.

We have given due consideration on facts, circumstances and evidence available on record. It has not been denied by the respondent that the registered post was uninsured. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent cited a ruling laid down in Head Post Office and Anr. vs. Neeraj Gupta, II(2013) CPJ 732 (NC) and argued that the Postal Department are not immune of remisses relating to non-delivery of registered post. Admittedly, it is not a matter of

(3)

non-delivery but it relates to alleged pilferage of the post in transit.  The alleged documents, details of which have not been given in the complaint were uninsured. There is no complaint from the addressee regarding pilferage of the envelop. The registered post was delivered to the addressee on 5.4.1997 and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to confirm the judgment and order passed on assumptions and presumptions. There is nothing on record to disprove the factum that the registered post was delivered to the addressee unpilferaged and thus, it will not be appropriated to  hold any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Furthermore, the respondent/ complainant did not declare at the time of sending the registered post that the same contained share certificates and other valuable documents. No fraudulent or wilful misconduct or default has been attributed on the respondent. Therefore, in view of rulings laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Post Master, Imphal and Ors. vs. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000 (1) CPR 34 (NC FB) and Post Master, Sub Post Office and Ors. Vs. Ajai Goyal, IV(2013) CPJ 565 (NC), we are of the considered view that the appellants did not commit any deficiency in service or remiss in delivering the registered post to the addressee on 5.4.1997. There is no cogent evidence that the envelop was pilfered. There is no evidence that valuable documents/papers were actually sent and were not received by the addressee. No complaint has been made by the addressee. He received the registered post without any objections.  The Forum below failed to

(4)

consider the evidence available on record. It also did not pay due attention to the rulings laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed the and impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside.   

  ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Deoria in complaint case no.209 of 1999 is set aside.  No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4