Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/22/137

Vincent D'souza - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/137
( Date of Filing : 02 Jun 2022 )
 
1. Vincent D'souza
Pearl Colony, A/5, Dadar East, Mumbai-400014
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sr. Post Master
Dadar H.O., Mumbai-400014
Maharashtra
2. Sr. Post Master
Bhawani Shankar Road P.O., Dadar West, Mumbai-400028
Maharashtra
3. Sr. Post Master
B.K.C. Post Office, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 08 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Order below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 in CC/22/137

 Per M.P.Kasar, Member          

Heard Complainant in person. Perused Complaint filed by the complainant and document annexed along with complaint at the stage of admission of complaint below section 36(2) of CPAct.

It has been  observed from the perusal of complaint that , complainant booked two speed post articles at opposite party No.1 post office  dated 26/4/22 and 11.5.22  It is alleged that, speed post article do not have proper seal /stamp of respective post office  bearing notification details of Indian posts such as intimation paid dated 27/4 & 28/4/22  at 11.50 am and left dated 12/5/22 respectively .It is alleged that,visit remarks of intimation paid by beat postman 3A both times are on senders address side of speed post article rather than specifying remarks on receivers side of address to whom sent. Only stam of unclaimed affixed but no sufficient reasons cause .It is alleged that to made two visits is mandatory but in one case only one visit made on 12/5/22. From the perusal of documents annexed at complaint in instant case as it has been observed  from the document that, complainant ought to have make grievances to opposite party firstly by mentioning violations by them as per postal manual and ought to have obtain their  reply on grievances raised by the complainant in regard procedure carried out by opposite party in respect of delivery reports of said two postal articles.Complainat failed to substantiate that below which applicable operation procedures or as per postal manual opposite party violated  their functions while discharging their functions at the time of  delivery of  complainat’s postal articles   which complainant himself has annexed with complaint.So opposite parties cannot be held liable  in regard deficiency in services or opposite parties adopted unfair trade practices towards complainant as interpreted in section 35(1) of CP Act 2019 we are of the opinion that present complaint cannot be admitted against opposite parties below section 36(2) of CPAct 2019 at the admission stage.

                                            ORDER                                          

1)CC N.22/137 is hereby rejected against opposite parties below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019

2)No order as to cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.