: J U D G M E N T :
This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant received an envelope on 12.09.12 from Reader’s Digest Books & Home Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. for a lucky draw wherein he was offered Rs. 18 lacs and the complainant was instructed to reply within 7 days to get the chance. On 12.09.012 the complainant at about 8 pm sent the required papers in favour of Reader’s Digest Books & Home Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd., post box No. 30, Pannel No. 410206 at Krishnagar HPO. But the OP No. 1 failed to serve the letter to the proper address and returned the envelope to the address of the complainant. On 26.09.12 the complainant getting surprised informed the matter to the OP No. 1 by his lawyer through registered post with A/D, but the OP 1 did not take any step. Finding no other alternative the complainant files this case praying for Rs. 18 lacks with interest, compensation and cost of the suit.
OP has contested this case by filing written version wherein he has denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The sum and substance of the written version is as follows:-
The present case is barred by the provision of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The present case is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has filed this case with ill and ulterior motive to deceive the postal department and for unnecessary harassment. The petitioner posted an envelope on 12.09.12 at about 8 pm by dropping the same inside the post box situated outside the HPO. The said box was duly opened on the next day and on 13.09.12 the same was delivered to the addressee. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 absolves the Postal Department for any, misdelivery, delay etc. of Postal articles during transmission. The post office performs under a statute and is a public utility service and there exists no contractual relationship between post Office and the beneficiary and it was also clarified by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision petition No. 175/92 and 247/92, So the OPs have negligence or deficiency in service and the case may be dismissed with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Have the OPs done deficiency in service?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have heard argument of Ld. Advocate for the complainant, Shri Pradip Banerjee and Ld. G.P. Sri Chatterjee representing the OPs.
Ld G.P. has filed BNA on 03.04.15 but Ld. Advocate for the complainant has not filed any BNA (brief notes of argument). We have meticulously gone through the documents on record. The original envelope was filed by Ld. Advocate, Sri Pradip Banerjee which was opened in the court and we find a form (official No. 150/1/IV/1). It has been argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the letter and the acknowledgement both returned due to the deficiency of the postal department. Ld. G.P. has submitted the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in order to strengthen his argument that postal department has exempted from liability for loss, misdeliver, delay or damage.
Perused Sections 6 of the Act and a copy of the judgment in revision petition No. 175 of 1992 of Hon'ble National Commission.
The order dtd. 15.04.1993 of the Hon'ble National Commission has set aside orders of the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to hold that the post office is not liable for misdelivery, loss etc. Thus, we hold that the claim of the petitioner is based on surmise and conjecture and not on logic.
We cannot accept the argument of Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the petitioner would have been selected for lucky draw of Rs. 18 lakhs had the letter been delivered to Readers Digest BHE (I) PVT. LTD., Post Box No. 30, Panvel HQ, Panvel 410206.
The petitioner’s case has no merit and the OPs are entitled to get the benefit of the Hon'ble National Commission’s order dtd. 15.04.1993.
Hence, all the points are disposed of.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/112 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
