Punjab

Moga

CC/17/79

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

In person

13 Dec 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 79 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 05.09.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 13.12.2017

 

Baljit Singh s/o S. Surjit Singh R/o VPO: Dala, Patti Jagga, Tehsil & District Moga-142001. Mob: 94658-15997.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       The Post Master, Head Post Office, Chamber Road, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga-142001.

 

2.       The Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-160017.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Baljit Singh, complainant in person.

                   Sh. Varinder Garg, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against The Post Master, Head Post Office, Chamber Road, Moga, Tehsil & District Moga (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to provide the status of delivery of registered letter and to improve their services. Further they may be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and loss of business due to wastage of time and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.06.2017 the complainant had approached the opposite party no.1 and requested it to send his RTI applications through registered post addressed to office of BDPO Moga-1, which was received by opposite party no.1 and the complainant was given a receipt no.A RP537152918IN at Counter no.1 dated 27.06.2017. On the very next day i.e. on 28.06.2017, the application of the complainant was sent to the office of concerned BDPO Moga-I, which was receipt by one Mohan Singh. When for many days, the complainant did not receive any information regarding his application, the complainant on dated 23.08.2017 approached the office of BDPO, but he was told that no application was received at their office. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 on 04.09.2017 to ask about the status of their application, where he was told that his application was received by one Mohan Singh at the office of BDPO Moga-I on which the complainant again went to the office of BDPO Moga-I, but he was told that there is no person Mohan Singh in their office. On this, the complainant again went to the office of opposite party no.1, but he was not given any satisfactory response. The act and conduct of opposite parties have caused mental tension & harassment to complainant and also caused financial loss to his business. The aforesaid act of opposite parties, amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the article no. RP537152918IN was booked from Moga HO on 27.06.2017 without any insurance. As per complainant he had sent his RTI application vide this Registered Letter, which has no intrinsic value of its sown. As such claim of the complainant is not admissible; that compensation of Rs.100/- has already been sanctioned in favour of complainant vide cheque no.284258 dated 24.10.2017 which is refused by complainant. No other relief/compensation is admissible under departmental rules; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The complainant has suppressed and mis-stated the material facts from this Forum. In fact the true facts are that vide registered letter no.RP537152918IN was booked from Moga HO on 27.06.2017 and was addressed to BDPO Moga-I by the complainant. The said letter was delivered on 28.06.2017, through Postman to Sh. Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As per section 6 of Post Office Act expressly states that the employees of the Department are not responsible for loss, mis-delivery and damage unless they have caused the same fraudulently or by wilful act or default. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that Registered Letter no.RP537152918IN was booked from Moga Head Office on 27.06.2017. However, contents of the Registered Letter was never known to the postal authorities. It is admitted upto the extent that Registered letter no.PB537152918IN was delivered on 28.06.2017 through postman which was received by Mohan Singh in the office of BDPO Moga-I. It is also admitted to the extent that complainant was told that his registered letter was delivered on 28.06.2017 to Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I. Enquiries into the complainant has revealed that registered letter in question was delivered by postman wrongly to Mohan Singh in the office of BDPO Moga-I. Suitable action will be taken against the postman for wrong delivery of articles as per departmental rules. Compensation of Rs.100/- under department rules has already been sanctioned to complainant vide cheque no.284258 dated 24.10.2017 which was refused by complainant vide his letter dated 27.10.2017. No other relief/compensation is admissible under departmental rules. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite party tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Jarnail Singh Bhullar, Superintendent, Post Office as Ex.Ops-1 and copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard complainant in person and counsel for opposite parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Complainant argued that on 27.06.2017 the complainant had approached to opposite party no.1 and requested it to send his RTI application through registered post addressed to office of BDPO Moga-1, which was received by opposite party no.1 and he was given a receipt no. A RP537152918IN. On the very next day i.e. on 28.06.2017, the application of the complainant was sent to the office of concerned BDPO Moga-I, which was receipt by one Mohan Singh. When the complainant did not receive any information regarding his application, he confirmed about the same from the office of BDPO on 23.08.2017, but he was told that no application was received at their office. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 on 04.09.2017 to ask about the status of their application, where he was told that his application was received by one Mohan Singh at the office of BDPO Moga-I on which the complainant again went to the office of BDPO Moga-I, but he was told that there is no person Mohan Singh in their office. On this, he again went to the office of opposite party no.1, but he was not given any satisfactory response. The act and conduct of opposite parties have caused mental tension & harassment to complainant and also caused financial loss to complainant.

8.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party argued that the complainant has suppressed and mis-stated the material facts from this Forum. In fact a registered letter no.RP537152918IN was booked from Moga Head Office on 27.06.2017 and was addressed to BDPO Moga-I by the complainant. The said letter was delivered on 28.06.2017, through Postman to Sh. Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I. He argued that as per section 6 of Post Office Act expressly states that the employees of the Department are not responsible for loss, mis-delivery and damage unless they have caused the same fraudulently or by wilful act or default. He further argued that enquiries have been done by complainant revealed that registered letter in question was delivered by postman wrongly to Mohan Singh in the office of BDPO Moga-I. Suitable action will be taken against the postman for wrong delivery of articles as per departmental rules. Compensation of Rs.100/- under department rules has already been sanctioned to complainant vide cheque no.284258 dated 24.10.2017 which was refused by complainant vide his letter dated 27.10.2017. He argued that no other relief/compensation is admissible under departmental rules and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

9.                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant sent a RTI application addressed to office of BDPO Moga-1, through opposite party no.1. The said letter was delivered on 28.06.2017, through Postman to Sh. Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I. But the complainant did not receive any information regarding his application. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 to ask about the status of their application, where he was told that his application was received by one Mohan Singh at the office of BDPO Moga-I. On this the version of the complainant is that when he confirmed about the same from the office of BDPO Moga-I, he was told that there is no person Mohan Singh in their office. On it, ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that the said letter was delivered on 28.06.2017, through Postman to Sh. Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Furthermore as per section 6 of Post Office Act expressly states that the employees of the Department are not responsible for loss, mis-delivery and damage unless they have caused the same fraudulently or by wilful act or default. He further argued that when enquiry was made, then it was revealed that registered letter in question was delivered by postman wrongly to Mohan Singh in the office of BDPO Moga-I. Suitable action will be taken against the postman for wrong delivery of articles as per departmental rules. Compensation of Rs.100/- under department rules has already been sanctioned to complainant vide cheque no.284258 dated 24.10.2017 which was refused by complainant vide his letter dated 27.10.2017. He argued that no other relief/compensation is admissible under departmental rules.    

                   From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record and pleading made by parties in above discussion, we are of the opinion that opposite parties themselves admitted that the letter in question was wrongly delivered on 28.06.2017, through Postman to one Sh. Mohan Singh at office of BDPO Moga-I, and they stated that compensation of Rs.100/- under department rules has already been sanctioned to complainant vide cheque no.284258 dated 24.10.2017 in this way they impliedly admitted the allegations made by complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OPs.

8.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The Ops are further directed to improve their service in future. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 13.12.2017.

 

                                         (Bhupinder Kaur)                                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                              Member                                                  President