DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.238 of 09.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 04.12.2009<br /> <br /> Karamjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of village Bhucho Khurd, Tehsil and District Bathinda.<br /> ……Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. The Superintendent, City Post Office, Bathinda.<br /> 2. The Post Master, Head Post Office, Bathinda.<br /> 3. The Post Master, Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bahhinda.<br /> 4. Jasvir Singh, Postman.<br /> 5. Ranjit Singh, Postman.<br /> c/o Post Master, Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.<br /> ……Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the <br /> complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties: Sh. M.R.Gupta, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite parties that he is a resident of village Bhucho Khurd, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. A Regd. Letter containing the valuable documents, regarding the property/License of the complainant, was sent to him, from Kanpur, and the same person also got posted containing some documents, by way of Regd. post to one Ajaib Singh S/o Sardul Singh, resident of village Bhucho Khurd, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. A Regd. letter sent to Sh. Ajaib Singh, was delivered to him on 28.06.2009. Ajaib Singh told him that he received the letter, from Kanpur, and asked the complainant that, he has been told by the postman of the locality that, there is a Regd. letter in the name of complainant, with the postman. He immediately approached opposite parties No.4 and 5, and enquired about his Regd. letter, but he was not given any positive response, but opposite parties No.4 and 5, assured him that, the said Regd. letter will be delivered to him, at the earliest. He continued to make efforts, by approaching opposite parties No.4 and 5, for delivery of his Regd. letter, but they did not deliver the same to him till 01.07.2009. He also tried to approach the postman of the locality on mobile No. 98783-04996, but the postman misbehaved with him, and told him that, he has returned the Regd. post undelivered. He reported the matter to the Police Station, Bathinda, and also moved an application on the same day, for taking necessary action against opposite parties No.4 and 5. Opposite parties No.4 and 5 failed to provide the service to the complainant, and having knowledge that a Regd. letter received from Kanpur, was addressed to the complainant, and only with a view to harass the complainant, the said Regd. letter was returned undelivered, despite the fact that the complainant himself, continued to approach opposite parties No.4 and 5, from 28.06.2009 onwards, for receiving the delivery of the Regd. Letter. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, complainant suffered mental tension and harassment, for which the complainant is entitled for reasonable amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which he had spent on visiting the office of opposite party No.1 from time to time, at the cost of his business alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the claim, and filed a joint reply raising inter-alia objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant is not a consumer; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Union of India has not been made party; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try, and decide the present complaint; complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds; complainant has concealed the true and material facts; complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint, by his own act and conduct, and there is no deficiency in providing service, on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On merits also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant has presumed that the letter in question was got posted from Kanpur to him. Moreover, a Regd. letter No. 3429 was received by the opposite party No.3, from the RMS with the address “Sh. Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, Bhucho Mandi, Distt. Bathinda.” The said letter was entrusted to the postman for delivery. The postman tried his best to locate the addressee, but he could not locate. As such, he returned the said Regd. letter to the sender on 30.06.2009, with the remarks:- “Wapas, Is naam da koi nahi hai.” It is important to mention here that the complainant himself has shown in the present complaint that, he is a resident of village Bhucho Khurd, whereas, on the said letter, if address was written correct then, there was no reason to return it, and the same would have been delivered correctly to the addressee/complainant definitely. As regards delivery of some other registered letters to Ajaib Singh, the address/name of village of the said person was correctly mentioned hence the same was delivered to him. They further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own affidavits dated 08.09.09, and 13.11.09 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3, and also brought on record, Photo copy of letter dated 01.07.09 Ex.C-2.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh, Post Master dated 23.11.09 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, copy of registered list Ex.R-2; copy of delivery slip Ex.R-3; copy of registered list Ex.R-4, and copy of letter dated 01.07.09 Ex.R-5.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. The complainant in support of his version filed his affidavit Ex.C-1, and also affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh, wherein, he has reasserted the facts of office complaint. Opposite parties have filed an affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh, Post Master of Post Office of Bhucho Mandi, wherein, it has been admitted that a Regd. Letter No. 3429 was received by the opposite party No.3, from the RMS with the address “Sh. Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, Bhucho Mandi, Distt. Bathinda.” The said letter was entrusted to the postman for delivery. The postman tried his best to locate the addressee, but he could not locate. As such, he returned the said Regd. letter to the sender on 30.06.2009, with the remarks:- “Wapas, Is naam da koi nahi hai.” It is important to mention here that the complainant himself has shown in the present complaint that he is resident of village Bhucho Khurd, whereas, on the said letter, if address was written correct then, there was no reason to return it, and the same would have been delivered correctly to the addressee/complainant, definitely. Opposite parties have also brought on the record, the Regd. List of the said letter, received in the post office, by the opposite party No.3 i.e. Ex.R-2, and delivery slip Ex.R-3, another registered list i.e. Ex.R-4. None of the documents i.e. Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 reveal that a Regd. Letter No. 3429, received from Kanpur or that, as per registered list Ex.R-2, was infact addressed “ Bhucho Mandi” and not “Bhucho Khurd.” Ex.R-3 delivery slip S.No. 12 reveals that the name of the addressee as Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, and endorsement of concerned post man i.e.“Wapas, Is naam da koi nahi hai.” The date of return of the Regd. Letter is not given in Ex.R-3, whereas, the complainant in his affidavit as well as the affidavit of Sh. Karamjit Singh Ex.C-3, has specifically mentioned, that Ajaib Singh received a Regd. Letter containing the similar document on 28.06.2009, and he told the complainant that he has received a letter from Kanpur, and asked the complainant that his letter is with the post man of the locality, and thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.4 and 5, enquired about the registered letter, but opposite parties No.4 and 5, despite assuring the complainant that, the registered post will be delivered to him at the earliest, and knowing the fact that the registered letter belong to the complainant, returned the same to the sender on 30.06.2009.<br /> 8. It appears from the evidence that opposite parties have built up a false story that, a Regd. Letter had received with wrong address, as the name of the village mentioned as “Bhucho Mandi”, and not “Bhucho Khurd”. Even from the reply of the opposite parties, it can be presumed that opposite parties No. 4 and 5 were knowing the registered letter No. 3429, which was received by opposite party No.3, with the address Sh. Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, infact belongs to the complainant, and they instead of delivering the said letter to the complainant with some ulterior motive, decided to return the same on 30.06.2009 to the sender, with the endorsement “Wapas, Is naam da koi nahi hai.” Despite the fact that the complainant approached opposite parties No.4 and 5 for delivery of his registered letter received by the opposite party No.3, and Ex.R-2 confirm that the said registered letter was booked from Kanpur. The stand taken by opposite parties appears totally unjustified, and non-delivery of registered letter No. 3429, which was booked from Kanpur, and address to the complainant not delivered to him, and returned to the same to the sender, without any reasonable and sufficient cause, which amount to deficiency in rendering service, and therefore, all the five opposite parties responsible for rendering deficient service to the complainant, by not delivering his registered letter, and returning the same to the sender, It also amount to unfair trade practice, by causing unnecessary harassment to the addressee/complainant.<br /> 9. From the facts and circumstances in the case, this Forum is not in a position; order to opposite parties to deliver the said registered letter to the complainant. At this stage of the complaint, however, the complainant is definitely, entitled for reasonable amount of compensation, which we assess to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, on account of mental tension, agony, harassment etc., alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.<br /> 10. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for, to pay the amount of compensation and cost, in equal shares. <br /> 11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost, and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 04.12.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />