Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No.1540 /2015.
DECIDED ON : 19 .10.2016.
Lahuji Parshuram Ingle,
C/o Shri Dadaji Dhuniwale,
Darbar Nagar, Khandwa,
Madhya Pradesh.
…. Appellant.
Versus
1. Head Post Master,
Head Post Office, Khandwa,
Madhya Pradesh.
2. Head Post Master,
G.P.O. Indore City,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
3. Post Master General,
Indore Zone, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
4. The Chief Post Master General,
Madhya Pradesh, Postal Circle,
Head Quarter, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh.
5. The Director General of Postal
Services, Department of Post,
Dak Bhawan, Ashoka Road,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
.… Respondents.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
-
2 -
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI AJAY DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
WITH APPELLANT / LAHUJI PARSHURAM INGLE.
O R D E R
The following order of the Commission was delivered by
Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellant / complainant has filed this appeal against the
order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the District Forum, Khandwa in CC
No.82/2015 whereby his complaint has been partly allowed.
2.
Briefly stated, facts of the case as stated by the complainant
are that he is a retired official of Postal Department. On 29.4.2015 he posted a
letter, but it was not delivered to addressee. He also posted a speed post letter
on 6.5.2015 from Head Post Office, Khandwa to Lokpal and Lokayukt, Zone City,
GPO Head Quarter, Indore. But on 12.5.2015 the respondent / Postal
Department returned that letter by making a false endorsement of “not known”.
According to him, postman did not make endeavour to deliver the letter by
second beat. It is alleged that by that letter the complainant intended to expose a
fraud of about Rs.2,50,000/- of the Administrative Officers. Therefore, the letters
were not delivered and he was harassed by paying Rs.80/- less in his pension.
Aggrieved by the conduct of Postal Authorities alleging deficiency in service,
complainant claimed Rs.20 lacs for physical, mental and financial harassment.
3.
The respondents / Postal Authorities resisted the claim on
the ground that the complainant had been a retired pensioner of the Postal
Department which is a Department of Central Government, as such any
complaint about his pension was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
- 3 -
Respondents stated that though one of his post was returned with the remark of
the postman as “not known”, but another envelope dated 12.5.2015 had been
delivered on 15.5.2015. The complainant had been informed about the delivery
of the said envelope. The respondents further stated that in view of the Article 84
of the Post Office Guide Part – I, if there had been any misdelivery or damage in
post, the Postal Department’s officers were not liable to pay any damage to the
complainant.
4.
Learned District Forum after perusal of evidence on record
and consideration of various precedents of National Commission held that the
complaint of the appellant in respect of his pension was not maintainable before
the Consumer Forum, and in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Indian
Post Office Act, 1898 the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation
from the Postal Authorities in respect of loss or delayed delivery in the post.
However, the Forum awarded Rs.100/- to complainant for non-receipt of the
acknowledgement of the letters, in view of the notification of Postal Authorities.
5.
We have heard appellant, Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel
for appellant and perused the record.
6.
It is settled that the dispute about pension of an employee of
the Central Government Department cannot be raised before a Consumer
Forum, since the relationship between the employee and the employer
Government cannot be deemed to be an agreement or contract between a
consumer a
