Date of Filing: 02.03.2015
Date of Order: 07.01.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Smt. D.Nirmala, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 7th day of January, 2019
C.C.No.207/2015
Between
Sagi Srinivas Raju,
S/o. Sagi Tirupathi Raju,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Business,
Plot No.93, Huda heights, MLA Colony,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad – 500034
PH : 9849302830 …COMPLAINANT
And
- Union of India
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology
Government of India Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 11001.
- Director General,
Department of post, Government of India Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
- Director Philately
Department of post, Government of India Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
- Chief Post Master General
Dak Sadhan, A.P. Circle, Abids
Hyderabad – 500001.
- Standard Chartered Bank,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Situated at C 38/39, G Block,
Bandra kurla Complex,
Crescenzo Building,
Opp: Mumbail Cricket Association Club,
Bandra East Mumbai – 400051,
Maharashtra, India
Impleaded as Opposite ....OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 5
Party No.5 as per Order in
I.A.No.225/2015 dated 14.09.2015
Amended Petition
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri P.Narayana O.P.No.1 to 4
: Sri A.Sanjay Kishore O.P. No.5
O R D E R
(By Hon’ble Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1. This complaint has been preferred under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 and in consequences of it a direction to Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 for supply of Postage Stamps in the form of 40 stamps per sheet of Standard Chartered Bank by the complainant and to all the other interested persons through Opposite Party No.4 and for damages of Rs.50,000/- for causing inconvenience and sufferings by providing wrong and correct information.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, he is a Philatelist for the last 25 years having Philatelic Deposit A/c. No.1605 with Hyderabad General Post Office. Whenever Department of Posts issues fixed quantities of stamps commemorating important events the Department of Post will make available supplies to all Philatelists in India and General public to buy the stamps for their collection and postal usage. The complainant is an ardent, oriented and enthusiastic philatelist with large collection of stamps and he is a regular buyer of stamps in the form of Full Sheets, Sheet Lets. First Day Covers and Brochure’s issued and distributed for consideration from time to time by Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. He is Joint Secretary of Hyderabad Philatelic and Hobbies Society which is registered one and recognized by Postal department under the control of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4.
3. Whenever department of posts issued a commemorative postage stamp it allocates fixed quantities of each item for sale to all Philatelic Bureaus and counters in India and GPO., at Hyderabad is one among them. A postage stamp commemorating 150 years of establishment of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK was issued on 17.11.2008 with a print quantity of 24 lakhs as per the Brochure issued for it by Department of post. The said postage stamp of five rupees denomination was printed in two formats one in the form of Sheet Let of 16 stamps and other in the form of sheet consisting of 40 postage stamps. Philatelic Bureau in Hyderabad, General Post Office sold commemorative postage stamp of Standard Chartered Bank in the form of Sheet Let consisting of 16 postage stamps but, not stamps of Sheet of 40 stamps after 17.11.2008. Though, the stamps were issued for sale by all the Bureaus in India from 17.11.2008 itself the issue of stamps in the form of Sheet Lets and Sheets and quantity of 24 lakhs was not disclosed in the Brochure issued by Department of Post, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India. The complainant learnt from the websites maintained the Philatelist and also from Security Printing Press, Hyderabad that the stamps in the form of 40 stamps in each were issued and sold from Delhi. He also learnt that except for Delhi Police Circle under the control of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 the sheet of 40 stamps of Standard Chartered Bank issued on 17.11.2008 have not been released and distributed any were else in India. Opposite Party No.4 informed that, supply of the said stamp were not received. The complainant made enquiries and approached the concerned Opposite Parties through RTI Act for information with regard to supply and distribution of the same to various Philatelic Bureaus. He received satisfactory reply and most of the Bureaus have stated that, they did not receive the sheets of 40 stamps of Standard Chartered Bank. The complainant was constrained to approach Security Printing Press, Hyderabad to find out dispatch of sheets to all the Bureaus in India. But he was not given a satisfactory reply about it.
4. The complainant inspite of his best efforts could not procure stamps in the form of Sheets for his collection in the colour code which is in Philatelic jargon and his collection of reminders incomplete. Thus, non - supply and distribution of sheets consisting of 40 stamps each of Standard Chartered Bank in A.P. Circle by Opposite Parties 1 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
5. Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 filed a common written version stating that, the complainant is an account holder of P.D. A/c. No.1605 of Hyderabad, G.P.O., and all commemorative stamps issued by department on important occasions are being supplied to him on receipt of the same. He approached Hyderabad G.P.O., for purchase of 150 years of Standard Chartered Bank issued on 17.11.2008 in two formats and indent worth of Rs.84000/- containing sheet let consisting of 16 postage stamps was received at Hyderabad, G.P.O., on 03.01.2009. But, the sheets consisting of 40 postage stamps were not received and same was informed to the complainant by a letter dated 19.12.2013 in response to his applications dated 25.04.2013 & 05.12.2013.
6. The complainant is being complied with all types of stamps in the form of full sheets, sheet lets and stamps, as issued first day covers and brochures issued by the Department from time to time. The department of post printed 24 lakhs stamps on the theme Standard Chartered Bank in two format sheets and sheet lets and released on 17.11.2008 but the sheets were not printed for supply to the proponent 1050 sheets of Standard Chartered Bank sheet lets worth of Rs.84,000/- were received at Hyderabad, G.P.O., on 03.01.2009 and same were supplied to the complainant and other Philatelists by Hyderabad, G.P.O. Philately Division brought out an information sheet on the commemorative postage stamp issued and was displayed the number of stamps printed and not the formats in which stamps were printed. The complainant’s version that New Delhi Postal Circle, Sansud Marg, Philatelic Bureaus under Sansud Marg post office received 40 stamps sheets with a total number of stamps 6 lakhs is incorrect. The Sheets of 40 stamps and total number of 6 lakhs stamps printed for meant to be delivered to the proponent as per the requirement and were not issued for sale through Philatelic Bureaus / Counters Hyderabad, G.P.O., has not received sheets of Standard Chartered Bank comprising of 40 stamps sheets from any source. Hence, it cannot supply the same to the complainant. Since, the stamps of Standard Chartered Bank printed in the format of 40 stamps sheets were meant to be delivered to the proportionate alone and were not supplied for sale through Philatelic Bureaus / counters the question of deficiency of service does not arise. As there is no deficiency of service the question of payment of any compensation to the complainant does not arise. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Opposite party No.5 brought on record as per the orders in I.A.No.225/2015 dated 14.09.2015 filed separate written version stating that, the subject postage stamps were printed by the Philately Division Department of Posts exclusively for supply to Opposite Party No.5 and not for sale through Philatelic Bureaus / Counters. Hence, adding of Opposite Party No.5 as a party to the present complaint is incorrect and no releifs of sought by the complainant against it. However, without prejudice to its rights Opposite Party No.5 is willing to deposit 12 blocks of 16 stamps each perforated as 4 sub-blocks face value of each stamp is Rs.5/- either before this Forum or with the postal authorities as a gesture of good will faith with a view to put an end to the present proceedings. Hence, the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the enquiry stage the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material averments of the compliant and to support the same got exhibited 50 documents. For Opposite Party No.1 to 4 evidence affidavit of one Sri M.V.Muralidharan stated to be Chief Post Master, Hyderabad, G.P.O., is got filed and the substance of his affidavit is in tune with the defense set out in the written version filed for Opposite Parties 1 to 4. Similarly for Opposite Party No.5 his evidence affidavit of Sangeetha Pilani stated to be Legal Counsel is filed his affidavit also is in line with the defence set out in the written version filed for it. No documents is exhibited for the Opposite Parties 1 to 5. Almost all the documents got exhibited by complainant are the correspondence made by him with the various postal authorities and petitions filed by him under Right to Information Act etc., as such none of the documents got exhibited by him are in dispute.
9. On a consideration of material placed on the record the following points have emerged for consideration:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the complainant?
- Whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act ?
- To what relief ?
- Point No.I: The Department of Posts printed 24 lakhs stamps on the theme Standard Chartered Bank stamp and were released on 17.11.2008 and according to the Opposite Parties the said stamps were meant for proponent only and accordingly the said stamps were dispatched to Sansud Marg, Philatelic Bureau under Sansud Marg at Post Offices and were delivered to their proponent which is Standard Chartered Bank. Even according to the complainant not a single stamp out of 6 lakhs stamps in the form of sheets of 40 stamps each of the 150th anniversary of Standard Chartered Bank were not released to the people of India and all the stamps were handingover to proponent under Standard Chartered Bank. So, no further enquiry is required on this aspect. The complainant stand is handingover of all the 6 lakhs stamps to proponent Standard Chartered Bank is in fragrant violation establish rules, norms and regulations. At the same time complainant has not placed any of the rules or regulations which says whatever number of stamps were printed by the department of posts a portion of it is required to be released to the public for sale or required to be allotted to the persons like the complainant, whose habit is collecting the stamps.
- Complainant’s stand is inspite of his best efforts he could not procure stamps printed by Department of Posts of the purpose of 150th anniversary stamps of Standard Chartered Bank in the form of 40 stamps per sheet. As a result of it his collection remained incomplete. The non-supply and distribution of the sheets consisting of the 40 stamps each in A.P. Circle by Opposite Parties 1 to 4 amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Now, what is meant by deficiency of service under Act Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to be seen and it reads as under:
‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service:
So, what is meant by deficiency is a defect or for imperfection shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality in nature and manner of performance of duty is required to be maintained under any law amounts to deficiency in service. Admittedly in the present case there was no deliver of any product or material to the complainant to complain their quality or imperfection or short coming of expected quality. There is no statutory right to the complainant to insist on the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to sell the stamps printed by Department of posts on behalf of a third party. It is not in dispute that the printing of the 6 lakhs stamps in the form of sheets of 40 stamps each was on the occasion of 150th anniversary of Standard Chartered Bank the Opposite Party no.5 herein. If any part of the stamps got printed by Department of posts was put on sale to the public in any of the posts of apart from delivery to the proponent the complainant is justified to say that he was denied the opportunity of collecting the said stamps also for consideration. When the stamps were printed on any occasion of proponent and delivery to them how can the complainant allege that, by not releasing the stamps to the general public for sale amount to deficiency of service. What is service is defined and explained under Section 2 (O) of Consumer Protect Act, 1986 and it reads as under:
‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service:
What service the complainant is expecting from the Opposite Party No.1 to 5 is not explained by him. Admittedly, it does not extend services rendered on free of charges or under a contract. In the instant case there is no contract between the complainant and the Opposite Party no.1 to 4 for sale of the stamps that were printed by Department of Posts on any occasion. There is no statutory obligation on the part of Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to make available the stamps of whatever denomination printed on whatever occasion In the light of it the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service by Opposite Party No.1 to 4. Now coming to the aspect whether the complainant as a ‘consumer’ in respect of the stamps got printed and released by Department of Posts is to be seen defined and explained under Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protect Act, 1986 which reads as under:
‘consumer’ means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose:
In the instant case there is no deliver of any goods or object to the complainant by the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 or promise was made to him s to deliver the same. Until and unless a promise was made by the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to the complainant to deliver the stamps whenever printed and failure to honour the said promise may amounts deficiency and complainant cannot be considered in such circumstances as a ‘consumer’. Even according to the complainant he could get the subject stamps any post office and it is not his that he was promised by Opposite Party No.1 to 4 to supply hence question of deficiency does not arise. So, none of ingredients which are required to maintain a consumer case are there in case on hands. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly the point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No.II: Even according to the complainant Department of Posts printed subject stamps and released on 17.11.2008 and delivered to the proponent so the cause of action arose on the said date to raise a consumer complaint. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint within 2 years from the said date. The stand of the complainant that he addressed letters to various GPO’s to find out whether the subject stamps were released to those GPOs and later sought information under the RTI Act, 2005. Making correspondence with various posts or filing of the petitions under the RTI Act will not save the limitation. That apart the said correspondence was with the third parties and not with the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 so as to say that the cause of action will continue to survive during the said period and the present complaint is within the limitation. The present complaint was filed in the month of March-2015 whereas, original cause of action arose for the complainant was on 17.11.2008 and it shows the complaint was filed more than 6 years after cause of action arose. The complainant is relying in the case of Seshagiri Shetty VS. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2016 (2) SC.123. While dealing with the aspect of limitation the Apex Court held that pedantic approach should not be adopted to do justice, when injustice is caused to public litigant. Admittedly in the present case the complainant has not filed any petition under section 5 of limitation Act, 1963 along with the complaint to condone the delay in filing the complaint. If a delay petition was filed before registering the complaint it could examined. Hence this case law has no application. Accordingly, the point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No.III: In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 7th day of January, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sagi Srinivas Raju Sri M.V.Muralidhar,
O.P.Nos.1 to 4
Sangeetha Pilani, Legal
Counsel O.P.No.5
Exs. Filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1: Copy of the Brochure.
Ex.A2: Copy of the Sheet let of 16 Stamps.
Ex.A3: Sheet of 40 Stamps.
Ex.A4: Copy of the stamps showing the Traffic light portion.
Ex.A5: copy of the letter No.36/30/2013 Phila from Director philately , dt.19.11.2013.
Ex.A6: copy of letter addressed to Asst. Director ((Esst. & inv.), by the complainant.
Ex.A7: copy of letter the complainant from Chief Postmaster, Hyderabad, GPO.
Ex.A8: copy of letter the complainant from Chief Postmaster, Hyderabad, GPO.
Ex.A9: copy of the letter BG/GPO/RTI-220/13-14 Director of Chief Post Master, dt.20.12.2013.
Ex.A10: copy of the letter CRF/RTI Act/84/13-14 Director of Chief Post Master, dt.21.012.2013.
Ex.A11: copy of the letter CPM/RTI/CR/312/13-14 Director of Chief Post Master, dt.26.12.2013.
Ex.A12: copy of the letter CCC.RTI/Inward 96 from Chief Post Master, dt.30.12.2013.
Ex.A13: copy of the letter no.L/RTI Act-2005/177/LKO GPO/2013-14 PIC, Lucknow GPO, dt.03.01.2014.
Ex.A14: copy of the letter no.N/PRO/RTI/118/13-14 from Dy. Director, Mumbai, dt.06.01.2014.
Ex.A15: copy of the letter no.N/PRO/RTI/118/13-14 CB/RTI-201 (DDPO(Treasury)]2013-14 DDPO, dt. 08.01.2014.
Ex.A16: copy of the letter CR 11/RTI-80/2013-14 Senior post master, Sansad Marg, dt.17.01.2014.
Ex.A17: copy of the letter no.RTI/NDCD/121/14-15 from CPIO/Sr.Supd OF Post offices, New Delhi, dt.06.06.2014.
Ex.A18: copy of the letter no.RTI/NDCD/141/14-15 from CPIO/Sr.Supd OF Post offices, New Delhi, dt.01.07.2014.
Ex.A19: copy of the letter no.SPP/HR/2013-14/RTI/3089 from K.Gowrinath, SPP, dt.07.01.2014.
Ex.A20: copy of the letter no.SPP/HR/2013-14/RTI/4479 from N.Sidhan, SPP, dt.07.01.2014.
Ex.A21: copy of SGB stamps showing the corner block of the sheet with Traffic.
Ex.A22: Copy of letter written to the Director General (Philately), dt.28.01.2010.
Ex.A23: copy of the letter written to the Asst. Director (Philately), 18.04.2011.
Ex.A24: copy of the letter written to the Asst. Director (Philately), 08.09.2013.
Ex.A25: copy of letter No.36-30/2013 dt.03.10.2013.
Ex.A26: copy of the letter written to the Asst. Director (Philately), 25.04.2013.
Ex.A27: copy of the letter written to the Asst. Director (Philately), 24.06.2013.
Ex.A28: copy of letter to DDG, (Philately), 1st Appellate Authority, dt.01.08.2013.
Ex.A29: copy of letter to DDG, (Philately), 1st Appellate Authority, dt.25.10.2013.
Ex.A30: copy of letter no.CPMG/Phil/RTI/2013, Dt.19.11.2013.
Ex.A31: copy of letter no.CPMG/Phil/RTI/2013, Dt.09.12.2013.
Ex.A32: copy of the letter written to Asst. Director, dt.23.01.2014.
Ex.A33: copy of the letter No.AP/Phil/RTI/2013 from Asst. Director.
Ex.A34: copy of the letter to security printing press, Hyderabad. Dt.17.12.2013.
Ex.A35: copy of the letter written to K.Gowrinath, (SPP),. Dt.23.01.2014.
Ex.A36: copy of the letter written to Director, Phil(CPIO), New Delhi, dt.24.01.2014.
Ex.A37: copy of letter No.36-30/2013 from ADG., dt.14.02.2014.
Ex.A38: copy of letter written to 1st Appellate Authority, dt.29.03.2014.
Ex.A39: copy of letter No.36-30/2013 from Director (Phil) FAA, dt.15.05.2014.
Ex.A40: coy of the written to 1st Appellate Authority, dt.07.01.2014.
Ex.A41: copy of the letter No.PG/RTA/BII-135/2014 from DPS (O) 1st Appellate authority, dt.06.06.2014.
Ex.A42: copy of letter written to 1st Appellate Authority to Director of Postal Services, dt.24.07.2014.
Ex.A43: copy of letter Asst. Director (PG), dt.07.08.2014.
Ex.A44: copy of the Letter No.BD/NDCD/RTI/12/2015-16 from Sr. Suptd. Of Post offices, New Delhi Central Division, New Delhi, dt.07.01.2016.
Ex.A45: copy of Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference (Traditional Textiles of India).
Ex.A46: copy of Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference (Indian Musicians).
Ex.A47: copy of Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference (150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda).
Ex.A48: copy of the Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference.
Ex.A49: copy of the Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference.
Ex.A50: copy of the Technical data of other Brochure enclosed for reference.
Exs filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
