BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No. 141 of 2014
Instituted On: 01.12.2014
Decided On: 13.02.2015
Dr. R.P.Mittal aged 70 years, Retired Chief Medical Officer, # 446,
Block-C, Rajindra Estate, Moga Distt. Moga.
………Complainant
Versus
1. The Post Master, Main Post Office, Chamber Road, Moga.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Punjab Postal Circle, Sandesh Bhawan, Sector-17, Chandigarh 160017.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
****
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member
C.C.No. 141 of 2014 //2//
Present: Sh Ashok Goyal Adv. Cl. for the complainant
Sh Bikramjeet Singh Brar Adv. Cl. for the O.Ps
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against the Post Master, Main Post Office, Chamber Road, Moga and another (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’) directing them to deliver or return back letter No.EP250879313IN, which was sent by the complainant to his relative through speed post, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension & harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant availed the services of opposite party No.1 for sending a letter No. EP250879313IN through speed post from Moga to Parmod Goyal, A-208 Amar Vila Opposite RTO, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan and the said letter was dispatched on 05.08.2014. It has been alleged that in the letter mentioned above contained Rakhis, which were sent by the wife of the complainant to her brother at Udaipur on the eve of Raksha Bandan. But the same did not reach its destination nor returned back to him after the expiry of more than 110 days from the date of dispatch. It has been further alleged that complainant served a notice dated 14.10.2014 upon the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not give any reply to the above said notice.
C.C.No. 141 of 2014 //3//
Non delivering the Rakhis by the opposite parties at its destination, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who have appeared through their counsel namely Sh. Bikramjeet Singh Brar Advocate and filed joint written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not impleaded Union of India as party in the present. On merits, it has been pleaded that the dispatched letter by speed post has been admitted, but the content in the said letter denied. It has been further pleaded that notice dated 14.10.2014 received by opposite party and the same was lodged on web having No.14200-02833. The Uaipur Head office replied that the said article delivered on 11.08.2014 at its destination. In this regard, the reply was sent to the complainant by Post Master, Moga on 10.12.2014. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 tendered affidavit Ex.OP1, 2/1 of Kamlesh Chauhan, Superintendent
C.C.No. 141 of 2014 //4//
Post Office, copies of documents Ex.O.P.1,2/2 to Ex.O.P 1,2/4 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant Shri Ashok Goyal Advocate has vehemently contended that the complainant availed services of opposite party No.1 for sending a letter EP250879313IN through speed post from Moga to Parmod Goyal, A-208 Amar Vila Opposite RTO, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan. The letter containing Rakhis was dispatched on 05.08.2014. Copy of the postal receipt accounts for Ex.C-3. But, however, the letter did not reach the destination nor the same was returned back by the opposite parties even after the expiry of more than 110 days from the date of its dispatch. The complainant served a notice dated 14.10.2014 upon the opposite parties. Copy of the legal notice accounts for Ex.C-2. But the opposite parties did not give any reply for non delivery of the letter. Due to negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant has been suffering from mental and physical harassment besides economic loss. It is contended that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, physical harassment besides litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.
8. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh Bikramjeet Singh Brar Advocate has vehemently contended that the letter allegedly containing Rakhis was admittedly dispatched on
C.C.No. 141 of 2014 //5//
05.08.2014. As per postal record regarding delivery maintained at Udaipur Post Office, said letter was delivered at the destination. Copy of relevant entry accounts for Ex.OP 1,2/4. The factum of delivery of the letter was also intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2014. Copy of the letter accounts for Ex.O.P.1,2/2. Since the letter dispatched by the complainant has already been disbursed to the addressee at the given address, therefore, the complaint as farmed, is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The best witness for proving non-delivery of the letter was Pramod Goyal, but for the reasons best known to the complainant, he was purposely withheld. In the face of documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties, regarding delivery of the postal letter, oral evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to prove his case. It is therefore, contended that the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
10. There is no denying the fact that the complainant did send letter containing Rakhis vide speed post through opposite party No.1 to Parmod Goyal, A-208 Amar Vila Opposite RTO, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan on 05.08.2014. But the case of the complainant that the letter did not reach the addressee has not been proved through evidence on record. Best evidence for proving non-delivery of the letter was Pramod Goyal, but for the reasons best known to the complainant, he was purposely withheld from the witness box. On the other hand, not only that Kamlesh Chauhan
C.C.No. 141 of 2014 //6//
Superintendent, Post Offices filed his duly sworn affidavit to support the version of the opposite parties that letter in dispute has been delivered to the addressee on 11.08.2014, but the opposite parties also produced documentary proof in the shape of relevant entry of delivery register Ex. O.P 1,2/4 to prove actual disbursement. Documentary proof adduced by the opposite parties cannot be nullified by oral evidence adduced by the complainant. Since delivery of postal letter in dispute has been proved through documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by opposite parties and the complainant has miserably failed to rebut the same, therefore, complaint filed by him must fail. As such we are constrained to dismiss the complaint being false and frivolous. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:13.02.2015.
