RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.3105 of 1998

1- Union of India through Secretary,

    Department of Telecommunications,

    New Delhi. (Deleted vide order dated 6.4.2016)

2- PMG (Head Post Office),

    Kanpur.                                                     ….Appellants.

Versus

Badri Prasad Naresh Kumar Mishra,

Through Sri Naresh Kumar Mishra,

S/o Sri Badri Prasad Mishra,

R/o 47/85, Hatia, Bartan Bazar, Kanpur     …Respondent.

Present:-

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

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Sri Vishal Chaudhery for the appellants. 

None for the respondents.

Date  26.4.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.10.1998, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case No.285 of 1994, the appellant P.M.G., Kanpur has 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 conjectures only and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.

(2)

From perusal of the records, it transpires that Sri Naresh Kumar Mishra sent a Speed Post on behalf of Firm Badri Prasad Narsh Kumar Mishra from Kanpur to Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal of Shahdara, Delhi vide receipt no.995 on 29.10.1993. It has been alleged that he enclosed a Bank Draft of Rs.20,000.00 in the aforesaid Speed Post. The details of the Draft or the name of the Bank has not been disclosed. Admittedly, the Speed Post reached its destination on 8.11.1993. Thus, it took 10 days to reach its destination. It has been alleged that due to this malfeasance, he failed to obtain a contract, thus suffered a financial loss of about Rs.75,000.00. He has not disclosed as to how he suffered the aforesaid loss. Feeling aggrieved by this gross remiss on the part of the Postal Department, the respondent/complainant: Firm Badri Prasad Naresh Kumar Mishra through its Authorized Agent Shri Naresh Kumar filed complaint case no.285 of 1994 before the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar for redressal of his grievances.

The Forum below, after hearing the parties, directed the appellant Post Office to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation and Rs.250.00 as cost of litigation.

Aggrieved by this order, the instant appeal was filed. It was contended that under Rules, the respondent/ complainant was not permitted to keep any currency or valuable documents inside the envelop of the Speed Post without insurance/declaration. Besides this, no evidence was adduced regarding financial loss caused due to late delivery of the Speed Post. It was further contended at

(3)

Para-7 of the W.S. that the matter of delay in delivery was duly considered by the Department and it refunded the amount spent by the complainant/respondent by means of Crossed-Cheque which was duly accepted by the respondent/complainant; and with the acceptance of the postal charges by way of refund, the Consumer - Service Provider relationship between the parties came to an end, and therefore, the complaint was bad in the eye of law. It was also argued that award of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation was inappropriate in view of the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Speed Post though Manager, Speed Post Office vs. Laxman Singh, I(2010) CPJ 29 (NC).

We have gone through the records. The appeal was filed in the year 1998. Thereafter, a number of notices were sent to the respondent/complainant for filing its objections. No objection was filed, and therefore, service was deemed sufficient by the then Bench on 2.12.2015 and the appeal proceeded exparte against the respondent.

There is no denial of the fact that the Speed Post was delivered to the addressee intact on 8.11.1993. There is no complaint in this regard by the addressee. It is also an admitted fact that the Department refunded the postal- charges to the respondent/complainant by means of crossed-cheque for delay in delivery and the same was accepted by the respondent/complainant without any objection. Thus, the relationship of Consumer - Service Provider came to an end with the acceptance of the postal charges. Besides this, a grant of Rs.1,000.00 was not permissible in view of the ruling laid down in Laxman

(4)

Singh's case (supra). The Forum below erred in law, as well as in fact, in granting the relief to the respondent.  Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order, passed by the Forum below suffers from material irregularity and illegality and, therefore, needs to be set-aside. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed.    

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1998, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case No.285 of 1994 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.2