Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
In a nut shell, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant on 07.02.18 had made a Registered Post vide Consignment No. BRW 964295608 IN by paying charge of Rs.75/- but the articles could not be served on the addressee and returned with a note “ insufficient address, hence, not known”. According to the Complainant, he had put complete address of the addressee. So, on 19.02.18, he filed a written complaint along with the copies of his letter etc. with the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division, who sent the said complaint to the Sub-Postmaster, New Market Sub-Post Office, Kolkata for enquiry and reply. The said Sub-Postmaster sent a reply referring to the remark of Beat Postman No.2 (“ insufficient address, hence, not known” ) and enclosed a copy of delivery slip, which, according to the Complainant, shows a wrong/false record of the referred address. Subsequently, the Complainant is found to have made several written complaints with the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division, who sent the said complaints to the Sub-Postmaster, New Market Sub-Post Office, Kolkata and also to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Central Kolkata Division, Kolkata but inspite of that, no fruitful outcome could be received by the Complainant and finally, he filed this case praying for making delivery of the consignment sent by him under Registered Post and also prayed for compensation for harassment by way of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and also litigation cost. The Complainant also made copies of several documents as Annexures.
All the Ops contested the case by filing written version denying the allegation of deficiency in service as made by the Complainant. According to them, due to insufficient address given in the envelope containing the articles, the articles could not be served to the proper person. It is also denied about any laches and negligence on the part of the Ops.
The points for consideration are -
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case is maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, as alleged?
3.Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
4.To what other relief, if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
Point No.1 not pressed on behalf of the OPs. However, going through the materials on record, we hold that the complaint is maintainable.
Point No.2, 3 & 4.
During argument, Complainant argued his case himself and according to him, the address in the envelope containing the articles were duly given but inspite of that, the said envelope was returned and was not served upon the addressee.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Ops also during argument maintained the contention of the Ops as stated in their written version.
We find that the Complainant, in course of hearing, filed the original envelope containing the articles, which was sent by Registered Post by him. From the writing on the envelope, it is found that the address was “The Chairman and Members of Selection Committee for recommendation of appointment of President and Members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, West Bengal, Kreta Suraksha Bhawan, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata-700 087, West Bengal”. The said envelope was returned with the endorsement “ not known” and further “ insufficient address, hence, not known”. After endorsement, signature of concerned staff alongwith date was given. It also appears the official Seal of New Market Sub-Post Office, which was dated 12.02.18 is also there. The envelope was sent on 07.02.18 at Cooch Behar. So, it cannot be said that the Postal Department did not take any steps to deliver the item to the concerned addressee, but it could not be served due to the reasons as noted on the envelope itself.
When a Selection Committee is formed consisting of several persons, the Chairman and the Members would be different. Not a single person in a Committee can hold the post of Chairman as well as Member at the same time. So, from this, it is clear that name of the addressee is highly confusing. Not only that, Chairman and the Members may get changed periodically. The designations of the addressee (s) as given in the envelope indicate several persons. That being so, the Postal endorsement that the articles could not be served due to insufficient address is quite reasonable and accordingly, the inability to serve the articles is quite justifiable. Thus, in the circumstances, we cannot accept the plea that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
It is ordered,
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
