Punjab

Sangrur

CC/108/2015

Mohini Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Hakikat Rai Goyal

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    108

                                                Instituted on:      09.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       15.06.2015

 

Mohini Sharma D/o Shri Avinash Chander Sharma, C/o Shri Pawan Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No.214, Lawyers Chamber, District Courts, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Union of India through its Secretary, Postal Department, New Delhi.

2.     Post Master, Main Post Office, Sangrur.

3.     Karnatka State Open University, through its Registrar, Manasagan Gotri, Mysore-570006.

4.     Superintendent, Post Office, Sangrur.

5.     Elites Institute of Technology, Near Nankiana Chowk, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Hakikat Rai Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1,2&4       :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

For OP No.3 & 5       :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Ms. Mohini Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she took admission in the Katnatka State Open University during the year 2010 in three years B.Sc. (IT) course under distance education scheme through OP number 5 and the examinations were also to be held by the University through OP number 5. It is further stated that the complainant cleared only six semesters from the said university under registration number 1011DBIT0435.  As such, the complainant intended to send the documents to OP number 3 including Original B.Sc. IT degree along with demand draft etc. and availed the services of OP number 2 for sending the registered letter which was got booked through court post office, Sangrur vide receipt number RP378535531IN  dated 5.5.2014.  As it was the duty of the Op number 2 to deliver the registered letter to the addressee, but the OP failed to do so.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP  number 4 vide representation dated 30.01.2015 by attaching the Photostat copy of receipt dated 5.5.2014, but no reply was received.  It is further averred that the complainant also submitted the application under RTI Act regarding the present status of the application dated 5.5.2014 for obtaining the degree of B.S.IT passed by the complainant, but no reply was received.  It is further stated that the demand draft in question has also not been encashed till the filing of the complaint, which clearly shows that the envelope never reached to OP number 3.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to locate the registered letter number RP378535531IN dated 5.5.2014 and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  for mental tension, agony and harassment.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1, 2 and 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  On merits, it is admitted that the registered letter in question was booked from Sangrur Katchari post office on 5.5.2014 and the other allegations in the complaint have been denied.  It is further stated that after booking the registered letter on 5.5.2014, the same was forwarded by Sangrur Katchari Sub Post Office to Ludhiana RMS on the very same day duly entered in parcel list entered at serial number 3/3.   No complaint was ever lodged by the complainant in respect of non delivery of the registered letter before 30.1.2015.  It is further stated that as the particulars of the sender were not mentioned in the said letter, as such the complaint was not registered. However, a complaint number 148000-09176 dated 18.3.2015 was registered on Web after receipt of present complaint and as per updation of complaint by Manasagangothri post office, the registered letter in question was delivered on 13.5.2014 to the addressee, as such, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further stated that the letter dated 30.1.2015 was received by the OPs on 2.2.2015 and in the absence of the full particulars of the sender, the complaint could not be registered. It is further stated that on receipt of the copy of complaint from the District Forum, the complaint was registered and after updation on web it has been reported by the Manasagangothri sub post office that the registered letter in question was delivered on 13.5.2014 to the addressee. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has also been denied. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             Record shows that OPs number 3 and 5 did not appear,  as such, they were proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of application form, Ex.C-3 copy of DD amount of Rs.850/-, Ex.C-4 copy of postal receipt dated 5.5.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of RTI, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt dated 31.1.2015, Ex.C-7 copy of representation dated 30.1.2015, Ex.C-8 copy of postal receipt dated 31.1.2015, Ex.C-9 copy of information by bank, Ex.C-10 copy of DMC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1,2 and 4 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of information, Ex.Op1/2 copy of delivery receipt, Ex.OP1/3 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is not in dispute between the complainant and the OP number 2 that the complainant got booked a registered letter on 5.5.2014 under receipt number RP378535531IN for sending the same to  OP number 3 i.e. Karnataka State Open University, through its Registrar, Manasgan Gotri, Mysore-570006.  The grievance of the complainant is that the same never reached to the addressee i.e. OP number 3, as such the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs number 1,2 and 4 in their written reply is that the parcel/registered letter in question has already been delivered to the addressee on 13.05.2014.  We have also perused document Ex.OP1/1 which is conversation between OP number 2 and the postal authorities at Manasgangothri post office, which clearly reveals that the article in question was delivered to the address on 13.5.2014. Further Ex.OP-1/2 is the copy of delivery slip of the postal department, Mahasagangothri, which again clearly shows that the registered letter in question was delivered to the addressee on 13.5.2014. Ex.OP1/3 is the affidavit of Shri D.S.Suri, Superintendent Post Offices, Sangrur to show that the registered letter in question was duly delivered to the addressee on 13.5.2014.  On the other hand, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Ex.C-1,  Ex.C-2 copy of application form, Ex.C-3 photostat copy of demand draft of Rs.850/-,  and Ex.C-10 as statement of Marks etc., but the documents produced by the complainant does not show that the registered letter in question was never delivered to the OP number 3.  Further the complainant has not produced on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that the registered letter in question was not delivered to the OP number 3.  The complainant has not even produced any document on record from the side of the OP number 3 or the affidavit of any competent official to show that they never received any such a registered letter from the postal authorities relating to the complainant on 13.5.2014.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops number 1, 2 and 4 has drawn our attention towards the delivery slip which clearly reveals that the registered letter in question was delivered on 13.5.2014 to the addressee, OP number 3.     In these circumstances, we are unable to hold any deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 15, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member