Date of Hearing: 25th Day of August, 2015
Date of Judgment: Tuesday, 1st Day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant Revisional Application u/s.17(1(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of Opposite Party to impeach the order No.7 dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda (In short, DCDRF) in consumer complaint No.69/2014 whereby the prayer for addition of (1) Superintendent of Post Offices, Malda, (2) Postmaster, Malda Head Post Office as Opposite Party Nos.3&4 was rejected.
The Opposite Party herein Sri Kaushik Saha initiated a consumer complaint u/s. 12 of the Act before the Ld. DCDRF on the allegation that he received one cheque from Samsung Electronics India (P) Ltd. being cheque No.433359 dated 19.08.2014 and deposited the said cheque amounting to Rs.48,000/- to State Bank of India, Malda Branch for encashment on 29.08.2014. However, after elapse of considerable time the said amount was not credited in the account of Complainant for which the Complainant brought it to the notice of the concerned bank on 26.09.2014 but did not receive any response.
The Opposite Party by filing Written Version disputed the claim contending that the cheque in question was sent to CCPC, Kolkata through Malda Head Post Office by Registered Post with A/D on 04.09.2014 but the said cheque was not delivered by the Malda Head Post Office to CCPC, Kolkata and track report shows on 22.09.2014 the said article has been received at Krishnapur and after that no progress have been reflected. Accordingly, in the Written Version of the Opposite Party it is made clear that Superintendent of Post Offices, Malda and Post Master, Malda Head Post Office are necessary parties and without implicating them the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
However, by the impugned order the Ld. DCDRF rejected the application for addition of party on the ground that burden of proof lies upon the Petitioner and as the evidence has already begun, the application cannot be entertained and as such, it was rejected with cost of Rs.500/- which prompted the Opposite Party of the case to prefer this Revisional application.
The point arises for consideration in this Revision Petition as to whether the Ld. DCDRF has failed to exercise jurisdiction was vested or acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist and also the Opposite Party in person it emerges that the Opposite Party i.e. Complainant of the case received a cheque from Samsung Electronics India (P) Ltd., being No.433359 dated 19.08.2014 issued by Hong Kong and Sanghai Corporation Ltd. the said cheque was deposited with State Bank of India, Malda Branch for encashment on 29.08.2014. Materials on record speaks that the State Bank of Inda, Malda Branch sent the cheque to CCPC, Kolkata through Malda Head Post Office by Registered Post with A/D on 04.09.2014 but the said cheque was delivered by the Malda Head Post Office to CCPC, Kolkata was not received and Track Consignment Report to the article indicates that on 22.09.2014 the said article has been received at Krishnapur and after that no progress of the article has been reflected in the official website of India Posts Department.
So, there is no ambiguity that after receipt of the cheque the Opposite Party No.2 Bank sent it for encashment through Malda Head Post Office but ultimately it was not reached to CCPC, Kolkata and as such the cheque in question could not be encashed.
In Paragraph 18 of the Written Version the Opposite Parties have spelt out the manner of deficiency committed by the Post Office regarding delivery of the consignment. In spite of such specific statement, the Petitioner did not take any pain to implead Post Master, Malda Head Post Office and Superintendent of Post Offices, Malda as Parties.
In such a situation application under order 1 Rule 10(2) CP Code does not appear to be inconsistent in the facts and circumstances of the given case. Since there is an allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Head Post Office, Malda at least in presence of them the dispute is required to be heard.
Needless to mention that like a Petitioner an Opposite Party has also equal right to pray for addition of Parties if the situation demands for better appreciation of the disputes. It is true that the evidence of the case has already been commenced by filing evidence on affidavit as contemplated in Section 13(2)(b) or Section 13(4)(iii) of the Act. Nevertheless, the Complainant should have been careful in this regard and should come forward to make a prayer for addition of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Malda and Postmaster, Malda Head Post Office as Opposite Parties for appreciation of the instant consumer dispute, otherwise the consumer complaint itself may suffer.
Therefore, having heard the respective Parties and on introspection to the consumer dispute involved in the instant case the Ld. DCDRF has committed an error by not allowing application for addition of party. In other words, the impugned order suffers infirmity and with material irregularity for which we are constrained to interfere with the order impugned.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant Revisional Petition filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties being RP/29/2015 arising out of consumer complaint No.69/2014 pending in the court of Ld. DCDRF, Malda is allowed on contest. However, we do not make any order as to costs.
The Order No.7 dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda in consumer complaint No.69/2014 is hereby set aside.
The application filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties under order 1 rule 10 of CP Code is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Postmaster, Malda Head Post Office and Superintendent of Post Offices, Malda be added as Opposite Party No.3&4 respectively.
The Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda on 30.09.2015 to receive further order from the said authority.
The Registrar of the State Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda for information and necessary action.
