State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuljinder Kaur vs Post Master on 27 July, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 312 of 2007
Date of institution: 27.02.2007
Date of decision : 27.07.2012
Kuljinder Kaur wife of Jagjit Singh resident of H.No.54, Ward No.6, Kurali,
Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar now Mohali.
.....Complainant-Appellant
Versus
1. The Postmaster, Post Office, Sector 55, SAS Nagar, Mohali, District
Mohali.
2. The Post Master, Post Office, Punjabi University, Patiala.
3. General Post Master, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh.
4. Assistant Registrar, (Exams) Registration and Migration Branch,
Punjabi University, Patiala, District Patiala.
5. Punjabi University, Patiala through its Vice Chancellor.
.....OP-Respondents
2. First Appeal No.141 of 2007
Date of institution: 23.01.2007
Date of decision : 27.07.2012
1. The Postmaster, Post Office, Sec 55 S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Distt.
Mohali.
2. The Post Master, Post Office, Punjabi University, Patiala.
3. General Post Master, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh (UT).
....OP-Appellants
Versus
1. Kuljinder Kaur w/o Jagjit Singh resident of H.No.54, Ward No.6,
Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Ropar now Mohali.
....Complainant-Respondent
2. Asstt. Registrar (Exams) Registration & Migration Branch, Punjabi
University, Patiala, Distt. Patiala.
3. Punjabi University, Patiala through its Vice Chancellor.
...OP No.4 and 5-Respondents
First Appeal No.312 of 2007 2
3. First Appeal No.128 of 2007
Date of institution: 22.01.2007
Date of decision : 27.07.2012
Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar
.....OP No.5-Appellant
Versus
1. Kuljinder Kaur aged about 29 years w/o Jagjit Singh r/o H.No.54,
Ward No.6, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Ropar now Mohali.
...Complainant-Respondent
2. The Postmaster, Post Office, Sec. 55, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Distt.
Mohali.
3. The Post Master, Post Office, Punjabi University, Patiala.
4. General Post Master, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh (UT).
...OP No.1 to 3-Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 08.12.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the complainant : Sh.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate For OP No.1-3 : Sh.Namit Kumar, Advocate For OP No.4-5 : Sh.Vikrant Sharma, Advocate JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the following three appeals : -
1. First Appeal No.312 of 2007 (Kuljinder Kaur v. The Postmaster and others) First Appeal No.312 of 2007 3
2. First Appeal No.141 of 2007 (Post Master v. Kuljinder Kaur and others)
3. First Appeal No.128 of 2007 (Punjabi University v.
Kuljinder Kaur and others) All the three appeals have been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally. They were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.6300/- which was the fee deposited by the complainant with the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.312 of 2007 and the parties would be referred by their status as they enjoyed before the learned District Forum.
2. The case of the complainant is that she had applied to OP No.4 and 5 (wrongly mentioned as OP No.3 and 4) for migration certificate because she wanted to do MA (English) from Panjab University, Chandigarh. She had deposited Rs.6300/- with Panjab University, Chandigarh and the role number was to be issued to her only on receipt of the migration certificate. She applied to the Punjabi University, Patiala (OP No.5) for issuing the migration certificate and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.400/-. When she did not receive the same, she approached OP No.4 and 5 but they told her that the migration certificate has already been sent at her address which she did not receive. She was not issued the roll number by the Panjab University, Chandigarh due to non receipt of the migration certificate and the amount of Rs.6300/- deposited by her with them was not refunded. She, therefore, prayed that the migration certificate be issued to her and the OPs should compensate her for the loss of the amount of Rs.6300/- First Appeal No.312 of 2007 4 deposited with the Panjab University, Chandigarh as fee for MA (English). She also prayed for Rs.50,000/- as damages for wasting her one year of education and Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
3. The contention of OP No.4 and 5 is that the fee of Rs.400/- for issuing a migration certificate was deposited by the complainant with them on 16.11.2005 and on 17.11.2005, the migration certificate was issued and sent through registered post at the address of the complainant. It was contended that there was no delay on their part and if the certificate was not delivered to her, they were not responsible therefor.
4. The contention of OP No.1 to 3 is that their services had not been availed by the complainant and, therefore, she is not their consumer. It was contended that their services were availed by OP No.4 Assistant Registrar (Examination) Registration and Migration Branch and, therefore, this complaint does not lie against them.
5. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay compensation as mentioned in para 1 above. The complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation whereas the OPs have filed two separate appeals for setting aside the impugned order and for dismissal of the complaint. Since all the three appeals are against the same order, these are being heard and decided together and disposed of through this single judgment.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
First Appeal No.312 of 2007 5
8. The complainant had deposited fee of Rs.400/- with the Punjabi University, Patiala on 16.11.2005. The contention of the OP No.4 and 5 is that the migration certificate was issued without any delay on 17.11.2005 and it was sent to the complainant at her address through registered post. There was, therefore, no delay or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and 5 and they cannot be burdened to pay any compensation to the complainant.
9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that when the migration certificate dated 17.11.2005 was not delivered by OP No.1 to 3 at her address, she approached OP No.4 and 5 for a duplicate migration certificate through a letter, copy of which is Ex.C2. OP No.4 and 5, however, did not send the duplicate migration certificate but only informed her that the said certificate has already been sent to her by registered post. It is contended that this also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and 5. We do not find any merit in this argument also. For obtaining a duplicate migration certificate, the complainant was required to apply on a prescribed proforma and to deposit the fee therefor afresh. Neither the complainant had applied for a duplicate migration certificate on the prescribed proforma nor she deposited any fee therefor. OP No.4 and 5 are statutory bodies and they are required to obey the rules and regulations for issuance of migration certificate and could not have issued the same in the absence of application and fee from the complainant. There was, therefore, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and 5 if they did not issue a duplicate migration certificate which was not applied for. In this view of the matter, OP No.4 and 5 cannot be asked to pay any compensation to the complainant.
First Appeal No.312 of 2007 6
10. As regards the role of OP No.1 to 3, the learned counsel argued that their services were never availed by the complainant for sending the said migration certificate because it was OP No.4 and 5 who put the same in transmission. The contention of OP No.1 to 3 is that the complainant is not their consumer and, therefore, the present complaint does not lie. We do not find any merit in this argument. In view of Clause (d)(ii) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, the consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails the services for consideration. The services of OP No.1 to 3 were hired by OP No.4 and 5 for delivering the migration certificate to the complainant. The complainant was, therefore, beneficiary of the said service and would be covered under the definition of a consumer.
11. Learned counsel for OP No.1 to 3 then referred to Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and argued that in view of this provision, no complaint is maintainable against them. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, referred to the case "Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Bal Krishan" 2001 (0) AIJ-CO 4005259, "Postmaster, Post Office, Ferozepur City v. Chhabila Parshad", 2008 (1) CPC 694 and "Superintendent of Post and Telegraph v. M.L.Gupta and another" 2009 (1) CPC 419 in which cases the postal authorities were held liable for deficiency in services and were directed to pay compensation to the aggrieved. The learned counsel for the OPs, however, argued that these authorities would not be helpful to the complainant in view of law laid down in the following authorities : -
1. Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 SC 431
2. The Presidency Post Master and another v. Dr.U.Shankar Rao, II (1993) CPJ 141 (NC) First Appeal No.312 of 2007 7
3. The Post Master, Imphal and others v. Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000 (1) CLT 577
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Keltron Projectors Ltd. 2002 (3) CLT 498
5. The Director, Postal Services A & N Islands v. Shyamali Ganguly, 2003 (3) CLT 582
6. Tehsildar (Sales), Hisar v. Madan Lal, 2006 (3) CLT 46
7. Union of India and another v. State Bank of India and others, 2007 (2) CLT 50
8. Revision Petition No.2751 of 2008, Ranjit Singh v.
Secretary, Department of Posts decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 17.9.2008.
9. Revision Petition No.2411 of 2006, Union of India v.
M.L.Bohra decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 13.10.2010.
10. Head Postmaster, Post Office Branch, Ropar v. Rajnish Sharma, 2008(1) CLT 226 In case "Post Master, Imphal and others v. Dr.Jamini Devi Sagolband," (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission held in para 13 as follows : -
"13. That apart acceptance of the contention of the complainant will lead to disastrous consequences. Assuming that 10 lakh postal articles are posted all over India every day (the figure must be much more) and in 1% cases there is delay in delivery or loss of the postal packet, if the government has to pay compensation for 1,000 First Appeal No.312 of 2007 8 delayed packets a day and if, as in this case, compensation of Rs.20,000 is awarded, the Government will have to pay compensation of Rs.21 crores a day which will come to Rs. 730 crores a year. No government can bear the burnt of this sort of liability in rendering a valuable public service to the people. Either the postal service will have to be closed down or the charges enhanced drastically to bring home nearly another Rs.800 crores of revenue. It may be noted that we have no correct figure of letters and postal articles sent all over India. According to a judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court to which we shall presently refer it must run into billions. The Government gives much more in service than it gets in revenue. That is the reason for enacting Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act which gives absolute protection to the government against any claim for damages on account of loss of a postal article except in cases and to the extent to which it has been specifically provided in the Act itself. As the Supreme Court has pointed out the Post Office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender for sending of the postal articles to the addressee. It is really a branch of the public service subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act and the rules made thereunder." First Appeal No.312 of 2007 9
12. This authority was rendered by the Hon'ble President and four Hon'ble Members of the National Commission. It was, subsequently, followed in other cases and para 13 was reiterated to in the revision petition No.2411 of 2006 Union of India v. M.L.Vohra (supra).
13. In the present case, there is no allegation nor any proof if any officer of the postal department delayed the delivery of the migration certificate fraudulently or by his wilful act of default. No such official, if at all, at fault has been made a party to these proceedings nor any such evidence has been led against him. The contention of the learned counsel for OP No.1 to 3 is that in fact there was confusion about the house number and the postal letter was delivered to one Balwinder Kaur daughter of Sajjan Singh because their house was earlier bearing No.54 in Ward No.6. They have also argued the OPs have conducted an enquiry in this respect and found that after Balwinder Kaur received the parcel, she immediately sent the same to the husband of the complainant at her address. There was, therefore, no intention on the part of any of the officials to delay or mis- deliver the parcel and that is why no such allegation has been levelled against any official of the OP department. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of Section 6 and the authorities referred to above, the postal department is not liable to pay any compensation.
14. The learned counsel for OP No.1 to 3 has also argued that the complainant did not suffer, at all, due to the late delivery of the migration certificate. According to him, they enquired from the Panjab University, Chandigarh with which the complainant had deposited Rs.6300/- for appearing in MA (English). The roll number was issued to the complainant for appearing in the said examination but she intentionally did not appear. It is also argued that non receipt of the migration certificate did not adversely First Appeal No.312 of 2007 10 affect the educational prospects of the complainant and on account of that, she did not suffer any loss. The learned counsel for OP No.4 and 5 had produced copy of the letter dated 7.2.2007 issued by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. Showing that the University had issued her roll No.24067 which was sent to her on 29.3.2006. She, however, did not appear in the examination of her own accord and not due to the non receipt of the migration certificate. Viewed from this angle also, the complainant did not suffer any loss due to this reason.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum has wrongly allowed the complaint which was liable to be dismissed. The appeals filed by the Punjabi University, Patiala (FA No.128 of 2007) and the Department of posts (FA No.141 of 2007) must, therefore, succeed and are hereby allowed. The appeal filed by the complainant (FA No.312 of 2007) is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dated 8.12.2006 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
16. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER July 27, 2012.
Paritosh