C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/41
COMPLAINANTS : 1) Suchitra Biswas
W/o Late Mukunda Biswas
2) Manidipa Biswas,
D/o Late Mukunda Biswas
of 17, R.K. Mitra Lane, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
3) Arunima Banerjee
W/o Kanchan Banerjee
of R.N. Tagore Road,
Lichutala, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : The Postmaster
Krishnagar Head Post Office
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 08th July, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainants is that they have a dwelling house at Krishnagar and one Gopal Kundu is a tenant under them. On their behalf Sri Bhabani Pramanik, advocate served a notice under section 6(4) of the W.B.P.T. Act by registered post to Sri Gopal Kundu on 18.02.11, but said Bhabani Pramanik did not receive any acknowledgement of the letter though acknowledgement fees was paid to the OP. Thereafter Bhabani Pramanik sent a letter to the OP, inter alia, stating about non-receipt of the acknowledgement card. In reply to that the OP intimated that the said registered letter in question was delivered to one Raghunath Kundu on behalf of Gopal Kundu on 19.02.11. This activity of the OP is a gross negligence of duty as he did not deliver the letter to Gopal Kundu in whose name it was sent by registered post. So the case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP Postmaster, Krishnagar Head Post Office has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the petitioners are not consumers under him and as such the case is not maintainable in its present form. Besides this, the case is bad for defect of parties. It is his submission also that one registered letter was booked by Sri Bhabani Pramanik on 18.02.11 at Krishnagar Head Post Office addressed to one Gopal Kundu and the said letter was duly delivered to Raghunath Kundu on behalf of Gopal Kundu on 19.02.11 by the beat postman. On enquiry it is also revealed that Sri Raghunath Kundu is the maternal uncle and manager of Gopal Kundu, who duly handed over the letter to Gopal Kundu on the self same date and to that extent Raghunath Kundu made a statement on 19.05.11. Gopal Kundu was also verbally confirmed regarding receipt of the said letter. So there is no negligence on the part of this OP in delivering the letter to Raghunath Kundu, manager of Gopal Kundu. Therefore, the complainants have no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Have the complainants any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both parties it is available on record that on behalf of the complainants a registered letter was sent by their advocate, Sri Bhabani Pramanik to one Gopal Kundu through this OP on 18.02.11. Complainants’ specific allegation is that the said letter was not delivered to Gopal Kundu. Rather subsequently from postal department they came to learn that it was delivered to one Raghunath Kundu on behalf of Gopal Kundu on 19.02.11 due to which it is the submission of the complainants that it is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP as he did not deliver the letter to the actual addressee. OP has admitted in the written version that the postal peon delivered the letter to Sri Raghunath Kundu on 19.02.11. So considering the documents filed by the complainants and the statement made in the written version it is available that admittedly, the registered letter sent by Sri Bhabani Pramanik to Gopal Kundu was delivered to one Raghunath Kundu and not to the addressee Gopal Kundu. Ld. lawyer for the OP has drawn our attention to Section 6 of the Postal Act, 1898 which speaks that “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided ; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damge, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
He has also relied on clause 81 of Post Office Guide, Part -1 which speaks, “The Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post.” In the instant case it is established that the registered letter was delivered to one Raghunath Kundu and to the addressee. On the side of the OP two documents are filed from which it is available that Raghunath Kundu gave a written statement in presence of the Public Relation Inspector (Postal), Krishnagar Head Post Office to the extent that on 19.02.11 he received the registered letter No. A-8687 No. RL and duly delivered the same to Gopal Kundu. The beat postman stated in writing that he delivered the registered letter No. A-8687 to Raghunath Kundu who was the maternal uncle as well as manager of Gopal Kundu. Gopal Kundu is not made a party in this case though his presence is required for proper disposal of this case as to whether the registered letter addressed to his name was duly delivered to him by one Raghunath Kundu on 19.02.11. On this point the case suffers from defect of parties. Besides this there is no allegation by the complainants to the extent about fraudulent or wilful act or any default committed by any particular postal employee in not delivering the letter to the addressee, Sri Gopal Kundu.
In this connection ld. lawyer for the OP has cited a ruling (2008) 3 CPR page 153, Maharashtra where the Hon’ble State Commission decided “Complainant could not be said to be consumer and it was sender who got right to make a complaint for not delivery of letters or delay delivery of letters. OP was exempted from liability under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. Complainant had not named any particular employee who fraudulently or wilfully caused loss, misdelivery or delay delivery of articles – Complainant could not be able to have proved deficiency in service and was not entitled to compensation.” On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling of the Hon’ble State Commission, we hold that it is applicable in the instant case as the petition of complaint is not filed by Sri Bhabani Pramanik, who actually sent the registered letter to Gopal Kundu on behalf of the present complainants.
So in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, our considered view is that Bhabani Pramanik is the complainant who can file a case against the OP Post Office. The present complainants have no locus standi to file this case as they are not the consumers under the OP. We have already discussed that no specific allegation of fraudulent activity or wilful negligence is alleged against any specific postal employee by the complainants. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case, our considered view is that the complainants have failed to prove their case. So they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/41 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
