View 3325 Cases Against Post Office
Kirtan Bihari Barik filed a consumer case on 01 Dec 1999 against Superintendent of Post office in the Kendujhar Consumer Court. The case no is 111/1998 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Feb 2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KENDUJHAR
C.D. Case No. 111/1998
Sri Kirtan Bihari Barik, aged about 35 years,
S/o -Sri Karunakar Barik, At/P.O- Raisuan,
P.S- Sadar, Dist- Keonjhar,
At present: At/P.O- Dimbo,
P.S- Town, Dist- Keonjhar ……………….Complainant
Versus
Superintendent of Post office,
Keonjhar Division, Keonjhar
At/P.O/Dist- Keonjhar ………………..Opp. Party
For the complainant - Sri S.K. Rout, Advocate
For the Opp. Party - Sri S.N. Mahanta, Govt. Pleader
Present- Sri Binayak Acharya, President
Miss. P. Parija, Member
And
Dr. K.K. Dwibedi, Member
____________________________________________________________________________________
DATE OF HEARING: 11.02.1999 DATE OF ORDER: 01.12.1999
Sri Binayak Acharya, President: In the brief facts of this case is that, the petitioner was a owner of the residential house over Plot No.898, Khata No.30 of Mouza- Raisuan. Due to demolition of the Sub- Post office, Raisuan by the National High way Authority, the Opp. Party made negotiation on 27.9.97 with the petitioner for letting out his house for shifting of the Raisuan Sub- Post office to his house. The Opp. Party on 6.10.97 issued a registered letter to the complainant with a request to make their needed additions and alterations like ceiling of the Post office room and Sub- post master’s quarters portion, the doors, windows and counter to be provided, Latrine, Toilet facilities be provided, separate electric meter for post office would be installed including the Sub- post master’s quarters portion. As per their direction the complainant complied the work of alteration and addition as requested for smooth functioning of that Sub- Post office. After completion the petitioner intimated the fact to the Opp. Party as purposed for shifting Raisuan Sub- Post office to his own building but the Opp. Party again sent a regd. letter on 23.10.97 inviting a fresh application and directing him to be apply afresh before 10.11.97. Accordingly the petitioner had applied afresh and submitted application on 16.10.97. Therefore the petitioner had got a registered letter from the Opp. Party about postponement of shifting of the Post office without stating any reason.
When the petitioner approached them they had assured that the shifting would be made as per their instructions. The complainant had already expended Rs.30,000/- for alteration and addition providing ceiling, latrine facilities and separate electricity connection. By that time petitioner had been harassed both mentally and physically. When the complainant had submitted a bill amounting to Rs.30,000/- to the Opp. Party after getting the bill the Opp. Party remained silent.
Therefore the complainant demanded Rs.40,000/- including Rs.10,000/- towards house rent from November, 97 to August, 98 on 27.6.97 through registered letter to the Opp. Party, he replied through a registered post that the shifting of Post office to new building had been postponed due to administrative point and question of payment of house rent would not arise.
Therefore the complainant’s house remained vacant for indefinite period and could not be let out to any other party as it was specially made suitable for Post office. On 8.9.98 the complainant had sent a advocate notice by registered post to the Opp. Party demanding Rs.30,000/- for the works and Rs.10,000/- towards house rent from November, 97 to August, 98 to be paid within two months from receipt of the letter but the Opp. Party did not settle the matter for a long time. Being harassed both mentally and physically the petitioner filed this case on 22.12.98. He is a consumer submitting the offer of the O.P to make expenses for him.
After admission of this case, notice issued to the Opp. Party. The Opp. Party filed his version on 2.2.99 completely dis- admitting the complaint. Therefore hearing was taken up. The petitioner was a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(II) of that Act as a beneficiary. Though the petitioner directly did not pay any consideration to the Opp. Party ha has directed and made to expand money for the Opp. Party with their request to arrange and make his house suitable for running the Sub- Post office, Raisuan making necessary alterations and additions as per their instructions which was never needed by the Opp. Party prior to their request for himself. Therefore no need of alteration and addition as instructed for himself but he was compelled to expend the money for the above purpose as needed by the Opp. Party only for suitably functioning of their Sub- Post office. Though the petitioner did not pay consideration in coin he paid the consideration in kind for suitableness for their Sub- Post office, Raisuan. Hence the complainant comes within the purview of the C.P. Act when the petitioner was requested to expend money for their purposed Post office. He had definitely hired the service of the Opp. Party for consideration. In paragraph 4 of the show cause the Opp. Party has declared that though the contents of Para 2 to 6 of the petition were not fully true, he has otherwise admitted that the contents were partly true and not denied to be true. The Opp. Party has not denied because, he had otherwise admitted that the demolition of the Sub- Post office of Raisuan as stated by the petitioner for widening of the State Highway No.II was true. The averments made in paragraph No.3 of his show cause are never believed in view of the documents filed by the Opp. Party himself. The Opp. Party has filed some Xeroxed attested documents in order to defend his case but the petitioner has filed 12 numbers of original documents issued by the Opp. Party to the petitioner to prove his case.
The 1st letter was letter No.165 dated 6.10.97 regarding shifting of Raisuan Post office to the house of the petitioner issued by the Superintendent of Post office, Keonjhar stating that they had decided to shift the Raisuan Post office to the building of the petitioner on 19.10.97 with request to make their required additions and alterations like ceiling of the Post office room and Post master’s quarters portion, providing doors, windows and counter, Latrine/ Toilet facilities and separate electric meter for post office including Post master’s quarter. This was on original document with original seal and signature of the Opp. Party with copy to the Sub- Post office of Raisuan to pursue the house owner to complete the above noted works soon and submit his report early to his office.
Document No.2 is the original letter dt.15.10.97 regarding shifting of Raisuan Post office in reference to the letter of the office of Opp. Party dated 3.10.97 that the shifting of Post office had been postponed without showing sufficient grounds but not cancelled. Document No.2 also shows that there was not only negotiated for shifting of the Raisuan Sub- Post office to the building of the petitioner. At the same time a copy of that letter was forwarded to one Jambubati Behera who was not shown to be successor of Ghanashyam Behera of Raisuan as the Post office was demolished by the State Highway Authority in original which shows that some sort of plan had been made to deprive and trouble the petitioner.
The 3rd document dated 16.10.97 clearly shows that the petitioner informed about the completion of the building in all respects as per their requirement for shifting to the Raisuan Post office as proposed before to the building of petitioner.
The 4th document dated 23.10.97 was sent by the Opp. Party in original to the petitioner to apply afresh to be received by him before 10.11.97. What was the necessity of such instruction if he had already requested the petitioner as per filed document No.1 to make alteration and needed additions counter and ceiling etc. which were already complied and intimated.
The document No.5 bearing 4 sheets that the sketch map for alteration and addition of the building. Document No.6 is the letter of the Opp. Party to the complainant dated 22.7.97 and document No.7 is the letter dated 27.6.98 of the petitioner regarding the investment of Rs.30,000/- for Sub- Post office as per their instructions with a request to shifting the Post office and advocate notice to the Opp. Party besides two other registration receipts.
The Opp. Party also filed some Xeroxed attested documents attested by himself which are shaded with doubts. The document No.1 dated 10.9.97 clearly shows that the Asst. Superintendent of Post office had reported that as per the instructions ha had visited the new proposed building of the petitioner namely Kirtan Barik and it was situated near the Sadar Police station, Raisuan and at a distance of 250 years from the main road. The said building would be suitable for the Post office provided the ceiling of the office room and Postmaster quarter portion would be made windows, doors and latrine, toilet facilities as discussed on 27.9.97 at Raisuan would also be provided. The house owner was ceiling to let out his house at the monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The enquiry report of the Asst. Superintendent of Post office, Keonjhar on the application of the petitioner dated 1.10.97 clearly shows that one application with sketch map from Sri K. Barik had been received by the Op as discussed on 27.9.97.
The next document dated 6.10.97 by the Opp. Party clearly shows that it was settled for shifting the Raisuan Post office building of the petitioner on 19.10.97 to the building of petitioner. Therefore he was requested to make the additions and alterations which were required for the smooth functioning of the office namely the ceiling of the office and quarter portion of the counter as discussed on 27.9.97 at Raisuan providing addition and alterations and toilet facilities and separate electricity meter.
The next document is the petitioner Xeroxed and attested by the Opp. Party of one Sri J. Behera who had applied that according the advice of the Asst. Sub-post master, Keonjhar remodeled for the Post office work and house was ready for the office use. This letter seems to be fraudulent one because sufficiently prior to this Opp. Party had negotiated and requested the petitioner to let out to his house and do the necessary alterations and addition as per their need and J. Behera has declared that it was not possible on her part to vacant the Post office as he had already spent Rs.4000/- for remodeling the work. It seems to be procured long after negotiation with the petitioner who was harassed and troubled this evident from the documents filed by the Opp. Party himself that there was prior negotiation with the petitioner. He had already applied sufficient ahead what is the necessity to direct him to apply afresh to reach his application on or before 16.10.97 addressed to the Opp. Party.
The Xeroxed copy of the Public petition as sent by the Opp. Party as stated by the Opp. Party seems to be procured because all these signatures are without date addressed to the Opp. Party himself and received by himself on 13.10.97 when he had negotiated with the petitioner sufficiently ahead as sent on 6.10.97 issued by the Superintendent of Post office. The next dated 2.12.97 issued to the Post master regarding application of 3 owners of Raisuan to report regarding suitability of house for present Post office shifting of the building and willingness to let out the building for 5 years and availability of quarters seems to be manufactured and procured. Distance of the house of the petitioner from the present Post office was not needed.
The Xeroxed document dated 17.7.97 of the Opp. Party clearly shows that after making negotiation with the petitioner on 6.10.97 and as intimated vide office letter No.156 dated 23.10.97 not to shift the Post office to the proposed building of the petitioner with clear intention to harass him after directing him to make heavy expenditure for suitability for function of their Sub- Post office as proposed before.
Hence we are convinced that the Opp. Party has definitely harassed the petitioner as found deficiency of service. Therefore the Opp. Party is directed to make payment of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only to the petitioner towards house rent from November, 1997 to August, 1998 with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only since the house of the petitioner kept vacant and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards the expenditure from making the house suitable for functioning of the Raisuan Sub- Post office in absence of any expenditure sheet for the purpose claimed for within 30 days of pronouncement of the judgment failing which necessary penal actions will be taken against the Opp. Party under section 27 of the Act for disobedience of the order.
Orders pronounced in the open court today i.e. on the 1st day of December, 1999 under my hand and seal of this Forum.
I agree I agree
Dr. K.K. Dwibedi Miss P. Parija Sri Binayak Acharya
Member Member President
Dictated and Corrected by me.
Sri Binayak Acharya
President
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL No. 29 OF 2000
(Arising out of the Order passed in C.D. Case No. 111 of 1998 by the District Consumer Forum, Kendujhar)
In the matter of:
An Application U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986
And
In the matter of:
Superintendent of Post offices,
Keonjhar Division, Represented through Dillip Ku. Moharana,
Inspector of Post offices, Keonjhargarh, At/P.O/Dist- Keonjhar
. . . Appellant
-Versus-
Sri Kirtan Bihari Barik,
S/o -Sri Karunakar Barik, At/P.O- Raisuan,
P.S- Sadar, Dist- Keonjhar,
At present- At/P.O- Dimbo, P.S- Town, Dist- Keonjhar
. . . Respondent
The matter out of which the present C.D. Appeal arises was never before this Honorable Commission in any form what-so-ever.
The humble petition of the complainant named above;
C.D. APPEAL No. 29 OF 2000
This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kendujhar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C.D. Case No. 111 of 1998 directing the appellant to pay the respondent Rs.6000/- towards house rent from November, 1997 to August, 1998 cost of Rs.500/- and Rs.10,000/- towards expenditure incurred by him.
The case of the complainant/ respondent stated in brief is that the opposite party/ appellant made negotiation with him on 27.9.1997 for taking his house on rent to run the Sub- Post Office. After negotiation the respondent altered and repaired the house as per the direction of the appellant spending from his own pocket, but the appellant did not take the house on rent. Hence, he filed the aforesaid C.D. Case with prayer to direct the appellant to pay him Rs.44,000/- towards repairing of the house and 30,000/- as compensation.
The appellant appeared before the District Forum and filed written version contending that the respondent is not a consumer qua the appellant and denied the other allegations.
After going through the pleadings of the parties, hearing their respective counsel and perusing the record, the District Forum passed the impugned order as stated earlier.
Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant who was opposite party before the District Forum has preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent is not a ‘consumer’ qua the appellant because the appellant is not a service provider. As such, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the C.D. Case as it was not maintainable.
None appears on before of the respondent on call.
We are in one with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly the appeal is allowed ex-parte and the impugned order is set-aside.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
Sd/-
State C.D.R. Commission (Justice R.N. Biswal)
Odisha, Cuttack President
01/07/2015 Sd/-
(G.P. Sahu)
Member
(Sd/-
(S. Mohanty)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.