This appeal preferred to Ordre dated 17.12.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar in CC No 7 of 2019. The fact of the case is that the appellant Utpal Kumar Ray registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar on 21.01.2019 to the effect that the appellant sent a Postal letter registered letter with AD to the chairman and Member of Selection Committee for recommendation of the appointment of the President and Members of District Forum at 11A Mirza Ghalib Street, Calcutta, Government of West Bengal. The said letter was returned unserved with a postal endorsement that “insufficient address” and has returned back. Then, the Complainant filed a Written Complaint to the Superintendent of Post Office, Coochbehar for negligently returning back the referred registered letter. The said complaint was forwarded to the sub Post master of New Market Post Office for an inquiry and reply. The New Market Post Office in response to the Complainant mentioned that address of the addresses was insufficient and for that reason it was returned unserved. Thereafter, the matter was sent for inquiry on the basis of Written Complaint of the Complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Calcutta but no response was there on their part and for that reason this case was registered. After, registration the notice was sent to the address of the Opposite Parties who at first did not contest the case in due time by filing W.V and for that reason the case was posted for Ex-parte hearing. But subsequently, the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 that is Sub Post Master of New Market Office and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Coochbehar has contested the case by fling W.V and contended that the address mentioned in the envelope was insufficient. Beat Post Man visited at 11A Mirza Ghalib Street where West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was located. The men attached to the S.C.D.R.C., has refused to receive said consignment as because there was no permanent post or had any permanent designation as Chairman and Member of the Selection Committee of W.B.S.C.D.R.C and for that reason the notice was retuned unserved and the Postal peon had no latches on his part as because the men attached to S.C.D.R.C has refused the said letter consigned by the Complainant through Post and as such the instant Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed. After, recording the evidences Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute and observed that time to time a Selection Committee is formed for selection of appointment as President and Members of District Consumer Forums and there is no permanent post as Chairman or Members. So, the address mentioned in the envelope of the Complaint was highly confusing and Postal Authority had no occasion to deliver the Postal item as the persons attached to the office in the given address has refused to receive the said letter and for that reason Postal Authority has no deficiency of service. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the observation of Ld. Forum was not correct and appropriate as per the provisions of law. The appeal was registered in due course and notice was sent to the Postal Authority as respondents who has not contested the appeal. So the appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of the Appellant/Complainant.

Decision with reasons

Fact remains that as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act the concerned State Government time to time shall constitute a body of Selection Committee having Chairman and its Members who are generally designated in different permanent posts and for the purpose of Selection of President and Members, they time to time hold the chair of Chairman and the Members of the Selection Committee and there is every probability to change the said committee in time to time. After, hearing the Ld. Advocate of the appellant it is further revealed that Postal Authority after receiving the Written Complaint from the Complainant has gone through the matter in details and has conducted an inquiry whether the Postal beat post man had any latches on his part or not. After inquiry they came into conclusion that as there was no permanent person or fixed person to hold the chair of Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee. They have no separate office or separate address and for that reason the Postal man could not serve the postal item to the concerned man who was the actual recipient of the letter in dispute. Postal Authority sometimes without visiting the residence of the addressee returns back the same on fake allegations that the “addressee not found” or “insufficient address”. But here in this case the repeated investigation on the part of the Postal Authority speaks that the concerned beat Post man attached to New Market Post Office has visited the Kreta Suraksha Bhawan where the office of W.B.S.C.D.R.C was situated. According to provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the Hon’ble President of W.B.S.C.D.R.C by virtue of the designation holds the post of Chairman of the Selection Committee for appointment of President and Members of the District Forums and other Members are Law Secretary and the Principal Secretary of the Consumer Affairs Department. The Principal Secretary of the Consumer Affairs Department has a separate office not attached with W.B.S.C.D.R.C and the office of law secretary is located at Writers Building, Calcutta. The envelope mentions the address 11A Mirza Ghalib Street, Calcutta where the office of S.C.D.R.C is located including the Consumer Affairs Department. If, the said letter was sent in the name of Hon’ble President of S.C.D.R.C or in the name of Hon’ble Principal Secretary of the Government of West Bengal, Consumer Affairs Department then there was a possibility in handing over the Postal item in proper way but mere mention of Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee in the consignment letter was not proper to serve upon the rightful addressee and for that reason neither the Postal peon nor the concerned Post Office had any latches on their part. They have attempted to handover the said registered letter in due course and certainly no deficiency of service on their part could be established in this case. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be convincing, appropriate and no interference is required from the end of the Appellate Forum. Thus, the appeal devoids of any merit.

Hence, it’s merit

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on merit without any cost. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the appellant free of cost.