Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 09-10-2013, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit II (hereinafter referred to as, District Forum), in C. C. No. 230/2013, whereby the complaint case has been allowed ex parte against the OP.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP Postal Authority thereof has preferred this appeal.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that he sent a letter by Speed Post addressed to General Manager, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones, Telephone Bhavan, Kolkata – 700 001 on 18-06-2013.  However, the same got returned with the postal remark, “Not mention Deptt. Insufficient address”.  It is the further case of the Complainant that during a subsequent visit to the Telephone Bhavan, he found that there was a reception counter at the ground floor of the building to receive letters from outside people/delivery peon.  Holding the OP responsible for such lackadaisical attitude of the postal officials, Complainant filed the case before the Ld. District Forum.

As the OP did not contest the said case, the matter was heard ex parte.

The moot point for determination under this appeal is whether the impugned order is justified, or not.

Decision with reasons

It is contended by the Appellant that the complaint case suffers from mis-joinder of parties.  Stretching further, it is contended that the Office of the Postmaster General is not situated at GPO, Kolkata, P.S. Hare Street, as mentioned in the cause title, but it is actually situated at Youoyog Bhavan, C. R. Avenue, Kolkata.  Further, the Respondent has also not made the concerned post office, i.e., Rashbehari P.O., where the mail was booked, a party to the said complaint case whose version was necessary for proper adjudication of the case.  It is also stated by the Appellant that since several General Managers of BSNL sit at the given address, in absence of name of the particular department, the Appellant was not in a position to deliver the mail and so, it was returned to the sender with remarks, “Not mentioned Department, Insufficient address”. Denying any laches on its part, the Appellant thus prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

In view of the clarification given from the side of the Appellant, it appears that address of the Appellant was not properly mentioned in the cause title of the complaint case.  The Respondent should have taken due caution before initiating the complaint case to eradicate such a gross mistake on his part. Ignorance is no excuse to justify a blunder. Further, we are also fully in agreement with the views of the Appellant that Rashbehari Post Office was a necessary party to the case, but for some obscure reasons, it was not made a party to the complaint case.  Thus, we find the instant complaint case is defective for both mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.

Be that as it may, coming to the merit of the case, it is clarified by the Appellant that insofar as more than one General Manager of M/s BSNL are housed at the given address, mentioning of concerned department was of paramount importance to enable them to ensure proper delivery of the mail. 

No doubt, unless complete/proper address is given by the sender of a mail, it becomes a tough ask for the Postal Authorities to locate the actual addressee.  Had the Postal Authorities delivered the mail to a wrong person, let us not forget that, it would have landed them in a fix.  Certainly, as a responsible service provider of repute, the Appellant could ill afford such faux pas on its part. 

There can be no two opinions as to the fact that the entire onus of putting correct and complete address of the addressee was upon the Respondent, which, as it appears, he miserably failed to ensure.  Therefore, to blame the Appellant for his own gaffe, in our considered opinion, was totally uncalled for. The Respondent should have kept in mind that it is not the responsibility of the Postal Authority to speculate the intended addressee of a postal mail.  Postal department can be held liable in case despite having complete/correct address, it fails to ensure timely and safe delivery of a mail, otherwise not.  Thus, we find no laches on the part of the Appellant behind return of the Speed Post mail.

In the given circumstances, the impugned order cannot be justified under any circumstances.  However, it does appear to us that the Ld. District Forum derived at such erroneous inference and decreed the case in favour of the Respondent as the Appellant could not defend its case before the Ld. District Forum, thanks to the inherent defect with the cause title of the complaint case that cropped up due to visible haste/oversight/failure of the Respondent to mention proper address of the Appellant in the cause title of the case.

There being nothing to point out any sort of laches on the part of the Appellant, the impugned order is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside.

The appeal, thus, succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that FA/173/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent, but without any costs.  Consequently, the complaint case stands dismissed.