Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/131/2019

Sukhwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	131 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	03.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.07.2019

 

Sukhwant Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o H.No.113, Village Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1.     Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sardar Patel Marg, Canaught Place, New Delhi-      110001.

2.     Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17,      Chandigarh 160017.

3.     Senior Superintendent of Posts, Chandigarh Division, Sector         17, Chandigarh.

4.     Department of Posts, Customer Care Centre, Office of Sr.         Superintendent, Chandigarh Division, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

5.     Jaswinder Singh then P.A Post Office High Court Branch       through its Incharge.

6.     Manju Vinod, then S.P.M., Post Office High Court Branch,     Chandigarh through its Incharge.

7.     Gurmukh Singh, MTS, Peon, Post office, Sandesh Bhawan,   Sector 17, Chandigarh.

...Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against  order  dated  04.06.2019 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  in Consumer Complaint No.521 of 2018.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)., PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sukhwant Singh, appellant in person.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                In this appeal, the appellant/complainant has challenged order dated 04.06.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’) vide which, his complaint bearing No.521 of 2018 was dismissed.

2.             After having heard the appellant, who is present in person, and having carefully gone through the record and the impugned order passed by the Forum, we are of the considered opinion, no cause of action had accrued in favour of the appellant/complainant to file the complaint in the Forum as he was not the consumer qua the respondents/opposite parties. Even the Forum has rightly held so in its order. Clearly, the information sought under Right to Information Act by the appellant/ complainant was sent by Registrar, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court to him, through the respondents/opposite parties, by paying service charges. As per Inquiry Report dated 11.7.2018 (Annexure 19 of the Forum’s file), since the address of Dhanas was written in running hand, so it was read as ‘Daria’ instead of ‘Dhanas’, as a result whereof, the said registered letter was returned by Daria Post Office back to the High Court with the report of no such person on 16.10.2017. The report further says that the High Court officials offered to the appellant/complainant to take the delivery of the said letter by hand, which he refused. Consequent to non-accepting the letter by hand, the same was sent again on his correct address. Therefore, the Forum rightly held that there was no urgency with the appellant/complainant so as to say that the actual loss was caused to him with the delayed delivery.

3.             In our considered opinion, had there accrued any cause of action for non-delivery/late delivery of letter to the appellant/complainant, it was for the Hon’ble High Court to take up the matter against the respondents/opposite parties and not to the appellant/complainant. As rightly observed by the Forum, the appellant/complainant was not having any locus standi to file the consumer complaint as he was not a consumer and the actual consumer was the Registrar of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court being the sender of the said letter.  It is also important to mention here that the Registrar, Hon’ble High Court did not want any action on the complaint preferred by the appellant/ complainant against the respondents/opposite parties. Therefore, the appellant/complainant miserably failed to make out any case of loss occurred to him on account of non-delivery/late delivery of the letter in question.

4.             In our considered opinion, no deficiency in rendering service is attributable on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

5.             In our considered opinion, finding no merit in the complaint, the Forum rightly dismissed the same by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 04.06.2019 passed by District Forum – I, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.521 of 2018 is upheld.

7.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

18.07.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad