Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, NIT, Faridabad & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Shri Mahabir Prasad & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2186 of 2013
(Against the order dated 03.01.2013 in Appeal No. 1316/2012 of the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)
Decided on 4.7.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Postal authorities cannot show negligence under statutory protection.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Indian Post Office Act, 1898—Section 6—Postal services—Deficiency in service—Non-delivery of sped post—Even on production of authority letter registered letter was not delivered to authorized person of respondent—District Forum directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.51,030/- to complainant with 9% interest @ 9% p.a. and also to pay him Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and mental harassment—If nobody was available to receive postal article opposite parties were bound to send the same to its sender but they failed to perform their duty—Act of appellants-opposite parties for not delivering speed post article at its proper destination, is willful act or default on part of officials of petitioners—Two Fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity—Revision petition dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 24 to 28)
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition No.2186 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, ‘Act’) against the impugned order/judgment dated 3.1.2013, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1316/2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant had applied for allotment of a residential plot of 6 Marlas in Sector-57, Gurgaon to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, vide application No.11938 registered as G-57, 256681. For further correspondence the address in the application was given as H.No.569, Sector-19, Faridabad of respondent no.1’s son-in-law and he had authorized Shri Manoj Kumar to receive all letters on his behalf from postal authorities. On the draw of lots, the plot of land was not allotted to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 came to know that a registered letter containing refund of earnest money of Rs.51,030/- was sent by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 at his given address i.e. H. No.569, Sector-19, Faridabad. However, neither the registered letter was delivered to the authorized person of the respondent no.1, by the postman of the office of the petitioner no.1, nor was it returned to the respondent no.2.
3. The registered letter sent by the respondent no.2 containing refund of earnest money of Rs.51,030/- was marked to one Shri Babu Ram postman on 22.12.2004 who refused to deliver the same to Shri Manoj Kumar, the authorized representative of respondent no.1 and asked the respondent no.1 to collect it from the Post Office, Sector-16-A, Faridabad. It is also mention that even on production of authority letter, the registered letter in question was not delivered to authorized person of the respondent no.1 for some unknown reasons.
4. Shri Manoj Kumar had addressed a complaint letter dated 28.12.2004 to respondent no.1 narrating the entire episode and even after the said complaint, the postman neither delivered the said registered letter to Manoj Kumar, Attorney of Shri Mahabir Parshad, respondent no.1 nor returned the said registered letter to the respondent no.2.
5. The respondent no.1 also wrote a letter to respondent no.1 and the Secretary, Deptt. of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. In response to this letter, the Asstt. Director General (PG), Ministry of Communication and I.T., Deptt. of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi vide their letter No.F-No.13-9/05 PG dated 2.9.2005 intimated that the Dealing Assistant of Speed Post Article is responsible for the loss of the said article and the Manager, SPC has been addressed to pay the compensation to the sender and amount of compensation will be recovered from the official at fault in addition to disciplinary action.
6. Respondent no.1 sent an application by registered post on 1.3.2005 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for refund of the earnest money subsequently reminders were sent on 27.4.2005 and 17.5.2005. The respondent no.2 i.e., Estate Officer, Gurgaon (HUDA) vide his office letter memo No. 13221 dated 18.7.2005 intimated that the refund order No.U-57-032588 for Rs.51,030/- and refund cheque No.32627 has been encashed on 18.1.2005 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
7. The respondent no.1 had also got served a legal notice to the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 through his counsel on 9.7.2005 but yet till date of complaint the grievance of the respondent no.1 had not been redressed.
8. The respondent no.1 wrote a letter to Sr. Supdt. of Police, Sector-12, Faridabad on 25.7.2005 and requested the Police authorities to lodge FIR against the erring person and investigate the case.
9. The petitioners in their written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (short, ‘District Forum’) took Preliminary Objections that :
Under Section 6 of “The Indian Post Office Act, 1898”, the post office is exempted from liabili
