IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /169/2014.
Date of Filing: 04.12.2014. Date of Final Order: 08.01.2016.
Complainant: Sri Pritam Bhattacharyya, On Active Service Member(Engineer),
S/O Late Manotosh Bhattacharyy and Smt. Gouri Bhattacharyya,
95, South A.C. Road, P.O. Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742103.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Supdt. of Post Offices, Murshidabad Division, P.O. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.
Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.20, 00,000.00 for misplace, destroy and non-delivery of postal articles and for non supply of information under RTI Act.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant has not received any contents of any letter. The postal authority misplaced/destroyed/illegally hold/retained and handover to S.P. Humayun Kabir of all registered and normal letters from Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court, CAT, Bar counsel of India, District Judge, Election Commission, D.G/Military Operation of J&K, Delhi just to safeguard S.P. Humayun Kabir from Court Martial, 50 crores of compensation to the complaint for ghost police case being unsuccessful acknowledgement on one crore bribe from the complainant. The postal staff has removed plastics from incoming official envelopes to disclose inside matter, continuous edge cut of incoming speed posts, registered letters to disclose matter along with postal forgery through postal soft word, non refund of excess postal charges , non refund of late deliveries, booking of Writers’ Buildings memo at 184 Kms away Khagra P.O. with imply envelop duly endorsed government seal in which WBPD Registrar is EX-CM, after disclose endorsement of delay’s seal stopped permanently. Postal articles not delivered for the last 12 years. Aadhar card of complainant Pritam Bhattacharyya is not delivered. The complainant asked for point wise information in the month of September, 2014 as per provision under RTI and CP Act but the same is pending. His such act falls under violation Art 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India,, violation of RTI and CP Act and this involvement is war against nation. The complainant has fundamental rights to acknowledge Rs.20 lacs compensation from acting Supdt of Post Offices (not from Govt).
Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP No.1, in brief, is that the Op No.1 has denied all the allegations of deficiency in service. The OP had no laches for deficiency in service. The complainant is not a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986. The OP had no malafide intention to refrain from answering question under RTI Act. The complainant applied for information u/S RTI Act and reply was sent to the complainant by regd post on 19.3.14 but the same was returned undelivered due to long absence from his given address. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal on 14.03.2014 which was received by the Opposite Party on 29.05.2014, the reply was sent to him through Registered Post on 11.06.2014 but the letter was returned back with the remarks “Unclaimed’. Again the petitioner preferred an appeal under RTI Act which was sent to him through speed post on 24.09.2014 which was returned back to this Opposite Party the remarks “Addressee was absent from home for a long time and his Mother refused to take this articles hence Return”. As such this Opposite Party is always careful towards their duties. Aadhar card is used to deliver under ordinary post as per rules and for that there was no deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for consideration:-
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not as per definition of C.P Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant may get?
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for compensation of Rs.20 lacs from acting Superintendent of Post Office (not from Govt.) and point wise information under RTI Act.
The complainant’s main case is for supply of empty envelop and non-delivery of valuable letters from very important places e.g Supreme Court, High Court, CAT, Bar Council , D.J, C.J.M, several secretaries falsely showing not found/left etc. which caused loss of several cases and suffered huge loss.
The complainant has filed this complaint against Superintendent of Post Office, Murshidabad only.
The complainant’s residence is within Khagra Post Office.
But, in this case Post Master, Khagra P.O. and concerned staff of Khagra P.O. have not been impleaded in this case.
To prove the case, the complainant has adduced his evidence on affidavit and several Xerox copies of documents in support of his case.
On the other hand the OP-Superintendent of Post Office has denied the entire allegation and challenged that the complaint is not a consumer as he is a mere receipt of some letters where he has not paid any consideration money to the Postal Authority or he has not paid any postage charges to the sender for sending the letter.
In this regard the Ld. lawyer for the OP advanced argument that the complainant has not filed any document showing payment of postage charges by the complainant for service to the sender.
During hearing argument the complainant himself advanced argument that he has documents showing payment of postage charges to the s ender towards service charges for sending letter to the complainant and he will file the same but he has subsequently filed some Xerox copy of counter foil of postal orders and one Xerox copy of postal Order as a sample without mentioning any name and address.
It is true that in this particular case the complainant has not filed any documents showing that the complainant paid the postage stamp to the sender for sending letters to him by the sender for servicing towards consideration money but it may be interpreted in the manner that the complaint is entitled to get service of the OP as consideration money towards postage stamp was paid by the sender to the OP for sending the same to the complainant who is the ultimate beneficiary of the transaction and as such the complainant is entitled to get relief for deficiency in service of the OP for delivery of empty envelop and torn envelop and for non-delivery of envelop as a result he lost his court cases and suffered final loss.
Challenging the above interpretation the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has advanced argument referring a decision of Hon’ble J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dt. 16.4.2008 in the appeal of Amit Verma-Vs. Sr. Supdt. of Posts that the complainant is to prove payment of consideration money the postage stamp to become a consumer under C. P. Act.
In this regard the Ld. lawyer for the OP has advanced argument referring reported decision in II(2013)CPJ-565 (NC) Post Master, Sub-post Office & Others Ajoy Goyal that as per provision u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act there is specific provision that postal Department is not liable for any loss, delayed delivery , mis-delivery, damage and for non-delivery of articles unless the Post Officer has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
The instant complaint has been filed on 04.12.2014 before this Forum against Superintendent of Post office, Murshidabad Division praying for compensation of Rs.20 lacs for delivery of empty envelop and form and non-delivery of important letters.
To prove the same the complainant has filed before these Forum Xerox copies of 21 documents on 23.11.2015 during the course of hearing argument.
Where some documents are for the year 2015 thus, those documents are after the date of filing this case.
Regarding non-delivery of important letters the complaint has adduced Xerox copy of the case report of the Postal Department dt. 10.7.14 and letter of police addressed to S.P. forwarded by D.S.P on 26.12.11 and relied upon the same wherefrom it appears that at the relevant time the complaint was out of station but he has denied the same and to justify the same he has filed a document dt. 27.12.2011 wherefrom it appears that the complainant was present personally for registering Aadhar Card in the concerned office at Berhampore on 27.12.11.
In this case the concerned postal staff who went to deliver the articles to the house of the complainant has not been examined. Also, the person who submitted the report has not been examined.
The report of the postal Deptt. is dated . 10.7.14 and the report of the police is dated. 26.12.11.
From the Xerox copy of the letter of Police Personnel without mentioning his name, signature and seal addressed to SP, Murshidabad through Dy SP(HQ) , Murshidabad with the forwarding of Dy S.P(H.Q) on 26.12.11 with seal and signature it appears that that the concerned police personnel had been to the house of the complaint at 62, Old Amar Chakraborty Road, P.S. Berhampore. In that report the figure ‘6’ is not properly printed and this address at old Amar Chakraborty Road is not the address of the complainant as mentioned in the Adhar Card which is 95, South A.C. Road, Indra Prastha, Berhampore, P.O. Khagra, Murshidabad and the same address is in the petition of complaint.
In this report of police it is not mentioned categorically the date of visit to the house of the complainant and the date when the complainant left his house for joining his unit, the place of his unit has not been mentioned
Even if the report of the police would tally the purpose of the complainant to get relief before this forum for this particular deficiency would not serve because as per the provision of 6, Indian Post Office Act the complainant is to prove fraudulent act, willful act or default of the postal staff.
Further, in this particular case we find from the petition of complaint as well as evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant that there is allegation of such delay, non-delivery and delivery of empty-envelop and torn envelop and misplaced, illegally hold and destroyed letters from Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court, CAT, Bar Counsel of India, D.J. , CJM, Election Commission, CM Office and several other important offices.
There is specific allegation of non-delivery of postal ballots for last 12 years. The complainant has prayed for proving the authority letters to the complaint for the period of last 14 years submitted before Khagra, P.O.
There is allegation that the incoming normal letters have been stopped permanently.
There is allegation against A . Haque and J. Biswas, Supdt of P.O. , Murshidabad Division for vindictive act causing damages, harassment and breach of fundamental rights. But, those persons have not been impleaded.
The disputed period of postal service is w.e.f 01.01.2012 up to date.
There is specific prayer for deducting the compensation amount of Rs.20 lacs from salary and savings of the dealing Superintendent of P.O. , Murshidabad Division but the concerned persons have not been impleaded. Without impleading them there is no scope to consider this prayer.
Further, considering the nature of allegations the examination of the concerned postal staff and officers is required to be examined to prove the case.
Also, in this case the complainant has prayed for remedy for non-supply of information under RTI Act.
In this regard the Ld. lawyer for the OP has referred a reported decision in IV(2013) CPJ-300(NC)-Kali Ram-V-State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner regarding the case u/s 2(1)(d), 21(b) of the C.P. Act for non-supply of information under RTI Act wherein it has been held that complainant cannot be considered to be a “consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act since there is scope for remedy for 1st appeal and 2nd appeal approaching to the allowed u/S 9 of RTI Act, 2005 and as such the complaint is not maintainable.
In this case the OP/Postal Authority has made averment in their Written Version relating to the claim for answering the questions under RTI Act that they have sent the reply of the impugned questions to the complainant by registered post on 19.3.14.
Further during hearing of argument the complainant himself has not pressed seriously on the point of his claim relating to information under RTI Act.
In the reported decision in I(2014) CPJ 444(NC) relating to the case alleging deficiency in service by the OP to provide information sought by the complainant under RTI Act, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed in para 8 as under:-
“The RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies
available under this Act to a person who has been
denied any information. Since, petitioner has
specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act
and which he has already availed, the present
Consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.”
This Forum being not a court and relying upon the provisions of u/s 3 of the C. P. Act the complaint can be filed for additional remedy only for compensation for deficiency in service under RTI Act.
In this regard the settled principle of law is as under
- The RTI Act bars the jurisdiction of the courts but not the Consumer For a as the C.P. Act is meant to be an additional remedy.
- A complaint filed to claim compensation for deficiency in service for failure would maintainable under C. p. Act as the RTI Act does not deal with compensation for deficiency in service.
- Even if a particular law barred the jurisdiction of the courts, a complaint still be filed under C. P. Act, as it provides additional remedy.
In this case the complainant has not already availed any relief under RTI Act but appeal is pending and the relief under RTI Act is not only for additional remedy for compensation.
Considering the entire matter as discussed above we have no other alternative but to conclude that the nature of this case is involving legal questions, fraudulent act and willful act and default and for that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same.
This is not a simple case of deficiency in service and to determine amount of compensation.
In this case there is a question of permanent relief as the normal delivery of letters to the complainant has been stopped.
Civil court can only provide such permanent relief.
Hence,
Ordered
that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the points of law under RTI Act, 2005 and the Provision of law u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as raised and as such the complainant is at liberty to file the case before the appropriate Forum.
Accordingly, the Consumer Complaint No. CC/169/2014 be and the same is hereby disposed of finally.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member President
