SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Utpal Kumar Ray – Petitioner
versus
Sub Post Master (HSG-I) and Ors. – Respondents.
Revision Petition No. 220 of 2022
[From the order dated 29.12.2021 in Appeal No.22/2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal] With
IA/18212/2024 (Directions)
Decided on 24.10.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shubham Agarwal

IMPORTANT POINT
Postal Services – Postal Department is not expected to deliver letter when recipient-addressee is vaguely and collectively mentioned on letter.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Postal Services – Deficiency in service – Registered Letter returned unserved – Recipient-addressee is vaguely and collectively mentioned by petitioner and article could not have been delivered to anyone of several individuals (Chairman and Members) by Postman without equally inviting allegation of being negligent – Fora below have rightly found no negligence or deficiency on part of Postal Department – Findings of District Forum and State Commission are well-reasoned and based on evidence on record – Addressee as mentioned on article was clearly indeterminate and collective in nature and as such, non-delivery and return of article was a responsible and cautious conduct of Postman and Postal Department wherein neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service was there – Unless impugned concurrent findings of fact suffer from illegality, material irregularity, or manifest error or palpable jurisdictional error, there is no warrant for interference by National Commission in its revisional jurisdiction – In absence of any material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or perversity in appreciation of evidence, no interference is warranted under limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 6 and 7)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—The present revision petition challenges the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench in First Appeal No. 22/2021 whereby while confirming the order dated 17.12.2020 passed in CC/7/2019 by the District Forum, Cooch Behar, the appeal of the petitioner/complainant was dismissed on merit.

2. Brief facts of the present revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant sent a postal registered letter with AD to the Chairman and Members of Selection Committee for recommendation for appointment of the President and Members of District Forums, West Bengal at 11-A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata-700087, West Bengal. The said letter was returned unserved with a postal endorsement ‘insufficient address, hence not known”. On 19.2.2018 complainant sent a written complaint to sub Post Master of New Market Post Office (R-1) for inquiry and reply. In response to the same, New Market Post office replied that address of the addressee was insufficient and for that reason it was returned unserved. However, as per complainant there was nothing insufficient about the address of the addressee mentioned by him on the envelope. On 8.3.2018 complainant sent a complaint to the office of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Cooch Behar (R-2) regarding negligent reply of R-1. However, R-2 did not forward the letter for necessary inquiry. Thereafter, on 22.6.2018 a letter was received by the complainant from Sr. Supdt of Post Office, Kolkata (R-3) asking for both side pages of the envelope of the registered letter for further inquiry. The same were immediately sent to R-3 through R-2. There was no response from the respondents regarding the inquiry for more than six months. Being aggrieved by the response of the respondents and their negligent behaviour in handling the case, complainant filed a complaint case bearing No. CC/7/2019 at the District Forum. The District Forum, on an basis of the material on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.8.2013 and directed the petitioner to pay the remaining claim amount to the complainant and passed the following order:—

“.....During argument, Complainant argued his case himself and according to him, the address in the envelope containing the articles were duly given but inspite of that, the said envelope was returned and was not served upon the addressee.

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Ops also during argument maintained the contention of the Ops as stated in their written version.

We find that the Complainant, in course of hearing, filed the original envelope containing the articles, which was sent by Registered Post by him. From the writing on the envelope, it is found that the address was “The Chairman and Members of Selection Committee for recommendation of appointment of President and Members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, West Bengal, Kreta Suraksha Bhawan, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata-700 087, West Bengal”. The said envelope was returned with the endorsement ‘not known’ and further ‘insufficient address, hence, not known’. After endorsement, signature of concerned staff alongwith date was given. It also appears the official Seal of New Market Sub-Post Office, which was dated 12.2.18, is also there. The envelope was sent on 7.2.18 at Cooch Behar. So, it cannot be said that the Postal Department did not take any steps to deliver the item to the concerned addressee, but it could not be served due to the reasons as noted on the envelope itself.

When a Selection Committee is formed consisting of several persons, the Chairman and the Members would be different. Not a single person in a Committee can hold the post of Chairman as well as Member at the same time. So, from this, it is clear that name of the addressee is highly confusing. Not only that, Chairman and the Members may get changed periodically. The designations of the addressee(s) as given in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top