The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Superintendent Post Offices, Balasore Circle, O.P No.2 is Sri Dillip Kumar Das, Post Master, Panichhatra Post Office, O.P No.3 is the Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.4 is the Public Grievance (PG) Division, Postal Director, New Delhi.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being the service receiver, where one ATM card was dispatched by S.B.I on 24.12.2014 in the name of the Complainant, but the O.P No.2 on receipt of the same on 24.01.2015 returned on the same day without delivery, though the duty of O.P No.2 is to deliver to the addressee or to wait for seven days in case of absence. Such action caused due to vindictive attitude and personal ill feeling of O.P No.2 with the Complainant, as revealed from article tracking issued by India Post, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.P No.2. Accordingly, the Complainant informed to O.P No.4 in writing and through e-mail on 05.02.2015 and O.P No.4 had written a letter to O.P No.3 on 06.02.2015 to enquire and report within seven days, but the enquiry report was not communicated to the Complainant. As such the Complainant issued legal notice to the O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4 on 01.06.2015, but either of the above said O.Ps did not attend to it, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 08.07.2015 and on 17.07.2015. Finding no other ways, the Complainant filed this case with a prayer for payment of compensation towards mental agony and litigation cost. Neither the Complainant nor her Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.
3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability and Consumer. The O.Ps have further submitted that one speed post article bearing No.EX208446911IN sent by the State Bank of India in the name and address of the Complainant was received by the O.P No.2 from the Account Office Kupari S.O on 23.01.2015. The said article was returned back to the sender on the day of receipt by O.P No.2 due to endorsement of insufficient address on the cover of the same i.e. father’s name/ husband’s name or C/o. address not mentioned in it, for which it could not be ascertained the proper addressee, hence retuned on the same day. Hence, due to non-delivery of the article in question to addressee i.e. the Complainant, the present case arises. The Complainant is a beneficiary of service availed by him through the dispatcher of the article i.e. State Bank of India, can’t directly be regarded as a Consumer of the O.Ps since he has not paid any consideration. It is a fact that compensation can be paid only if the Complainant has hired the services of the O.Ps. In this case, the Complainant has not hired any service of O.P. The O.Ps are no way concerned with the purpose, for which the Speed post letter in question was sent by the sender to the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant that an ATM card was dispatched by the State Bank of India inside the SP article in question is beyond the knowledge of the O.Ps. The complaint petition is not maintainable in view of section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, which grants complete immunity to the O.Ps in case of loss of articles, delay of delivery etc. if any, except in case of willful act or default of service by O.Ps. In this case, the Complainant has not forwarded any proof regarding willful act or default of service to furnish the delivery status of her speed post article. Rather due to insufficient address, the O.Ps have returned the speed post article to its destination for delivery to the sender with promptitude. The sender of a postal article does not enter into any contract with the Government. The sender really avails of a service statutorily provided by the Government. It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed, but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the service. The Complainant has failed to make necessary Party to the sender of the speed post article i.e. State Bank of India, which could have focus/ prove the genuineness of address or otherwise, in absence of which Complainant may take pecuniary gain purposefully. Thus, the case of the Complainant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.Ps as per C.P Act, 1986 ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor her Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, her pleading remains as it is. According to her pleading, one ATM card was sent by S.B.I on 24.12.2014 in the name of the Complainant, but the O.P No.2 returned the same on 24.01.2015, the day he received the said item. Neither he delivered nor waited for seven days in case of absence of the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service by the O.P No.2. Thus, the Complainant informed through e-mail and in writing to the O.Ps in the matter, but neither of the O.Ps attended properly in the matter. Accordingly, the Complainant issued legal notices to the O.Ps No.1, 3 and 4 on 01.06.2015, but in vain, causing mental agony to the Complainant, thus filed this case for necessary relief. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that the Complainant has failed to make necessary Party to the sender of the speed post article i.e. State Bank of India, which could have focus/ prove the genuineness of address or otherwise, in absence of which Complainant may take pecuniary gain purposefully. The Complainant is a beneficiary of service availed by him through the dispatcher of the article i.e. State Bank of India, can’t directly be regarded as a Consumer of the O.Ps since he has not paid any consideration. It is a fact that compensation can be paid only if the Complainant has hired the services of the O.Ps. In this case, the Complainant has not hired any service of O.P. The complaint petition is not maintainable in view of section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, which grants complete immunity to the O.Ps in case of loss of articles, delay of delivery etc. if any, except in case of willful act or default of service by O.Ps. In this case, the Complainant has not forwarded any proof regarding willful act or default of service to furnish the delivery status of her speed post article. Rather due to insufficient address, the O.Ps have returned the speed post article to its destination for delivery to the sender with promptitude. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. In the instant case, the Complainant is claiming to be a Consumer, but the Consumer has been duly defined in the Section-2(d) (ii) of C.P Act, 1986. So, according to this definition, the Complainant does not come under the heading of the Consumer. So, when she is not a Consumer, her complaint case is not maintainable in this Forum.
6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found no reasonable ground to allow the case of the Complainant as she is not a Consumer and her case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 2nd day of April, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
