The case of the complainant is that , complainant instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division , First Court , Chandernagore. He issued legal notice to their premises tenant namely Tulia Devi , wife of late Ram Ratan Prasad, C/o the complainant himself by registered
post with A/d on 14.7.2010. The complainant sent the letter with A/d from counter no.1 of Chandernagore Post office but the A/D card did not return. An A/d card is essential in the eviction suit. The complainant instituted Title suit no. 212 of 2010 against Tulia Devi in the Civil Court. The complainant did not get the A/d card. Hence, the case has been instituted against the Op praying relief laid down in para 15 of the complaint. It is alleges that complainant failed to prove the service of notice by filing A/d card before the ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division for which the case has been dismissed exparte.
Op contested the case by filing WV denying inter alia all the allegations aroused by the complainant in his petition of complaint. Op admitted the booking and registration of that letter with A/d vide no.2908 dated 14.7.2010 for Rs.25/- from Chandernagore Post office addressed to Smt. Tulia Devi. The same was duly dispatched by the Sub Post Master , Chandernagore on the same day with entry in register list and serial no. 20 /49. The said article delivered by Telinipara Post office on 17.7.2010 and A/d card was duly sent to the sender as per Departmental procedure.
Only on 26.2.2013 the oP got letter from Nepal Chandra Sen, Advocate , letter dated 22.2.2013 regarding service of letter no.2908 dated 14.7.2010 . It is stated by the oP that as per record related registered articles is two years from the date of booking of the said articles. In this case, the Post Master got the complaint after two years seven months from the date of registration of letter in question. It is the case of the oP that delivery status of the registered letter with A/d no.2908 dated 14.7.2010 cannot be given by 22.2.2013 after expiry of two years
seven months. The registered letter was duly sent to Telinipara Post office as per Service Rule. So , A/d card was delivered to the sender and for this reason the petitioner did not take step regarding service within one month or two months of within two years. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation of law as per Rules. Moreover, there is no provision to maintain separate register in connection with delivery of A/D and the Dept. cannot force any sender to take delivery of A/D.
Complainant filed 1) Copy of Advocate’s letter 2) Copy of courier receipt 3) Copy of receipt 4) copy of letter sent to Tulia Devi 5) Judgement copy of T.S. 212 of 2010.
Op filed Xerox of Miscellaneous Postal Rules .
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1, 2 and 3
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted position letter through Op. Registered post by the complainant was made on 14.7.2010. Date of filing Title suit has not been stated. The complainant sent notice to the oP no.1 on 22.2.2013 i.e. after lapse of 2 years seven months. The complainant has stated his
urgency and requirements of getting A/D card showing delivery of the letter. If the complainant had so urgency what prevented the complainant to make such kind of letter which he made to the Post Master/OP no.1 on 22.2.2013 with a prayer for information regarding service of letter no.2908 dated 14.7.2010. Without taking that step the complainant has come forward before this Forum on 1.8.2013 after dismissal of the case exparte on 5.3.2013. Such conduct of the complainant itself shows that he is not diligent regarding the requirements before institution of a suit of Ejectment. It is the complainant who did not act diligently protecting his own interest an after dissatisfied by the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge, First court, Chandernagore, the complainant has approached this Forum and that too after five months later i.e. 1.8.2013. After getting notice the Op Post office has contested the case . Op has taken the plea of Miscellaneous Rules , Chapter I of Post office Guide showing class of records and period of preservation , serial no.12 and 13 at page 26 shows that registered list, parcel list, mail list receipt and dispatched two years, serial no.26 shows all records of registration , parcels and mail deptt. is one year . Accordingly, limitation of preservation period of those as per Misc. Rules is one year . The complainant did not approach the Post office not within one month , two months at least before filing the suit in the Ld. Court. If the complainant would have taken and would approach before the Post office regarding his A/d before filing the suit in the year 2010 , the complainant became successful in getting answer from Post office . So the conduct of the complainant is full of neglect and deficiency and act is without due care and attention, rather there is no deficiency of service on the part of the oP No.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant. The complainant’s petition is time barred. The complainant sent letter on 14.7.2010 and
approached before this Forum on 1.8.2013 that too after two years . The filing of this case is also barred by limitation as laid down in the C.P.Act because every case should be filed within two years from cause of action. So, the material on record miserably failed to convince us to get a favourable order regarding compensation in accordance with Section 14 of C.P.Act, 1986. Accordingly,
It is ordained
That the CC no. 121 of 2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
