Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal has been filed by org. complainant whose complaint against the Secretary, Post Department, Union of India and Post Master General, GPO, Mumbai and against the Director, Students Registration & Evaluation Division, New Delhi was dismissed as against opponent Nos.1&2 and rejected as against opponent No.3. Hence, this appeal is filed by org. complainant.
2. Grievance of the complainant was that she had appeared for examination conducted by opponent No.3. It was correspondence course and her number was MP 956311366. She appeared for the examination in December 1996 at Kelkar College, Mulund, Mumbai, Maharashtra State. The complainant expected her result within reasonable time, but she had not received any result. Hence, she sent many letters to the opponent No.3 asking for result. After four years, opponent No.3 replied that University had declared the result in the year 1997 itself and had sent grade card i.e. result by post to the complainant. For duplicate grade card she sent Indian Postal Order of `25/- to opponent No.3 by registered post acknowledgement due, but she did not receive the acknowledgement. She made inquiries with opponent No.2 about said registered acknowledgement, but no cognizance was taken. On 04/11/2001 she received A/D slip signed by opponent No.3 bearing receipt dated 30/10/2001 i.e. 15 months from the date of despatch. Till the date opponent No.3 did not send result to the complainant. Again on 27/07/2000 she sent RPAD to opponent No.3, but opponent No.3 remained negligent in sending letter and opponent Nos.1&2 acted negligently in not sending RPAD. Ultimately, she did not receive result and therefore, she filed consumer complaint claiming refund of `4 Lakhs i.e. charges for correspondence etc, `50,000/- for mental agony and `10,000/- for legal charges.
3. Complaint was filed in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Opponent Nos.1&2 appeared in response to the notice and filed their written version, but opponent No.3 did not appear to contest the matter. Opponent No.2 defended their action and stated that RL No.3031 was duly delivered to the addressee and grievance of the complainant has been removed. On perusal of the affidavits and documents, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that as far as opponent Nos.1&2 are concerned, RL Nos.3031 sent by the complainant on 21/07/2000 was delivered to opponent No.3-addressee on 29/07/2000 and there was no delay of 15 months as alleged by the complainant. This fact was corroborated by receipt bearing No.3031 filed by the complainant. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum therefore held that opponent Nos.1&2 were not guilty of deficiency in services and it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. As far as opponent No.3 is concerned, opponent No.3 had not contested the matter and had not filed written version. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was of the view that opponent No.3 was resident of New Delhi and cause of action did not happen within the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. As per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, consumer complaint should be filed where the opposite party resides or carried on business or work for gain or having branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. What is pertinent to note is the fact that opponent No.3/respondent No.3 herein is of New Delhi. It is not having branch office at District Thane. The appellant who was complainant had appeared for examination at Kelkar College, Mulund, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra. Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the consumer complaint as against opponent No.3 who is resident of New Delhi and as such District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was pleased to reject the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this order, complainant has filed this appeal.
4. Office had sent notices to both the parties on finding that on 04/08/2011 both parties were absent. Notices were returnable on 29/09/2011. But none appeared for the parties today. Therefore, we perused the impugned order and we are finding the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be just and proper. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Postal Departments/respondent Nos.1&2 herein and so far as respondent No.3 is concerned, it is resident of New Delhi and there was no branch office of respondent No.3 in the territorial jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Hence, so far as respondent No.3, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rejected the complaint and permitted the appellant to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Forum. On the whole, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is appearing to be just and proper and sustainable in law. As such we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 29th September 2011.
