Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No.RP.1.2018

1. The Department of Post,

Government of India,

Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Union of India,

To be represented by the Secretary,

Ministry of Communication and IT,

Department of Posts,

Government of India,

Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. The Chief Post Master General,

North East Postal Circle,

Shillong – 793001, Meghalaya.

4. Superintendent of Post,

Dharmanagar Postal Division,

Dharmanagar, Pin – 799250, North Tripura.

5. The Post Master,

Kailashahar, MDG,

North Tripura, Pin – 799277.

… … … … Revision Petitioners/Opposite parties.

Vs

1. Sri Amitava Ghosh,

S/o Late Rabindra Narayan Ghosh,

Presently residing at

C/o Sri Arjun Debnath of Kajirgaon, 

P.S. & P.O. Kailashahar,

District – Unakoti, Tripura, Pin – 799277.

                                                                … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

For the Petitioners:                                             Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, CGC.

For the Respondent:                                            In person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 17.09.2018.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 21.02.2018, 18.05.2018 as well as 25.07.2018 along with other subsequent orders passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No.C.C.17 of 2016. In the Revision Petition, the petitioners also prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of aforesaid complaint case.

2. Today is fixed for admission hearing of the Revision Petition.
3. As agreed to by the parties, the instant Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage.
4. Heard Mr. Biswanath Majumdar, Ld. CGC appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) as well as Sri Amitava Ghosh, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) appearing in person.
5. Facts of the case are as follows:-

Shri Amitava Ghosh, the complainant, the respondent herein, submitted a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that he withdrew money amounting to Rs.10,000/- through Postal ATM on 25.08.2017 first time and on the same day, he again attempted to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,000/- by the same ATM card, but did not receive the amount due to power failure. Accordingly, he had informed the Station Post Master, Kailashahar MDG. The Station Post Master, Kailashahar assured him that the amount will be returned to him within 72 hours, but the opposite parties, the petitioners herein, did not credit the amount in his SB A/C No.9644448403 within 72 hours. Thus, according to the complainant, it is deficiency in service. On 27.09.2017, he again informed through e-mail, but the opposite parties did not reply to the request. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties, the complainant requested the opposite party no.5 i.e. Post Master, Kailashahar, MDG to supply the account statement for the month of August, 2017, but the opposite party no.5 did not supply the accounts statement. Being failed to get the account statement, he had applied through RTI to the CPIO i.e. opposite party no.4 on 16.09.2017 through the opposite party no.5. The opposite party no.4, the Superintendent of Post, Dharmanagar Postal Division rejected his application. So, the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum.

6. The learned District Forum upon receipt of the complaint petition on 31.10.2017 registered it as a complaint case and issued notice to the opposite parties. Opposite parties after receipt of the notice appeared and the complainant has also been examined.
7. The opposite parties filed their written statement and being dissatisfied with the orders dated 21.02.2018, 18.05.2018 and 25.07.2018 passed by the learned District Forum filed the instant Revision Petition on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum suffer from infirmities and misconception of law and facts. It is also stated that the learned District Forum failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
8. The impugned orders are quoted hereunder:-

“ 21/02/2018: Complainant is present. Complainant has…………some documents with copy to the OP. Keep the documents with the record. Ld. Counsel of the OP is present.

Complainant verbally submits that he could not prepare evidence and prays for time to submit evidence.

Complainant is directed to submit his evidence by way of examination in chief on affidavit. On the next date with copy thereof to the other side.

Hence, adjourned.

Fix 21/03/18 for evidence of the complainant.”

Today is fixed for evidence of the OPs, but an application has been submitted on behalf ………… praying for allowing them to file addl. pleading/written statement.

The case is at the stage of evidence of the OP and stage of w/s is already over.

Therefore, the petition stands rejected.

It is directed that on the next date the OPs must file evidence and no more time will be allowed for the purpose.

Fix 27.06.18 for evidence of the OP.”

Learned counsel of OP side is also present.

Today is fixed for cross examination of the OP. But a petition is submitted on behalf of the OPs prays for time to face cross examination.

Prayer for time is allowed.

Fix 21/08/2018 for cross examination of the OP (as last chance).”

9. Mr. Majumdar, Ld. CGC appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-petitioners while urging for setting aside the impugned orders as well as quash the entire proceeding would contend that the learned District Forum failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested under the Consumer Protection Act. He again submits that the allegation of the complainant is not come within the purview of the “service” as per provisions of Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
10. On the other hand, complainant appearing in person submits that the instant Revision Petition is not maintainable as the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing its orders. He further submits that the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners herein was never raised before the learned District Forum. Thus the same cannot be raised in the Revisional Forum.
11. We have gone through the complainant petition as well as the impugned orders. According to us, the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong in its orders, rather it appears that the learned District Forum allowed time again and again to the petitioners-opposite parties which will be evident from order dated 03.05.2018 wherein it is mentioned that “Complainant is present. Today is fixed for evidence of the OP, but a prayer has been submitted on behalf of the OP for time as they could not collect documents and information. However, prayer is allowed. Fix 18.05.2018 for evidence of the OP.” On 18.05.2018, the petitioners-opposite parties filed an application praying for time to allow them to submit additional written statement which was rejected and the petitioners-opposite parties were directed to file their evidence and the said order is one of the challenges before this Commission. On 25.07.2018 was fixed for cross-examination of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties prayed for time to face cross-examination which was allowed by the learned District Forum. Therefore, according to us, the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned orders. More so, the question of jurisdiction as well as the question of maintainability which are raised before this Commission can easily be raised before the learned District Forum.  

In view of the above, the instant Revision Petition is not fit for admission being devoid of merit.

In the result, the Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

However, the opposite parties-petitioners are at liberty to raise the question of maintainability as well as the jurisdiction before the learned District Forum at the time of final hearing of the complaint case.