State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master vs Rk Govindaraju on 28 November, 2003
-1- BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED 28"' NOVEMBER 2003 PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MRJUSTI E TJAYARAMA CHOUTA : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER 8R1 J.N.SRINIVASA MURTHY : MEMBER APPEAL NO.27 9 j 2002 1. The Post Master (HSG- 1} Head Post Office, Near Clack Tower, Davanagere--5'77 001: 2:. The Superintendent of Post Ofiices, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga-577 50 1. 3. The Post Master General, State Post Office & Office of the Post Master General, Queens Road, Bangalore-560 001. ' .... .. Appellants (By.S1i G.V.Hegc1e, Advocate) -Vs., Sri R.K.Govindaraju, S/o Sri R.Krishnappa, Door No.7"77, Ganesh Pet, Shivajinagar, Davanagere-560 001. .;. Respondent (By Sri Revarma Be11a1y,. Advocate) LN O R D E R
JUSTICE TJAYARAMA CHOUTA. PRESIDENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the opponents against the order of the District Forum, Chitradurga dt. 5.3.2002 in Complaint No.138:2001 directing to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/~ as compensation to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order with interest at 12°/6 p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and awarding costs of Rs.2,000/ -.
2. Since the order of the DP' has to he set aside on the short ground of non-consideration of the contention raised by the opponents in their version, We do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail. However, for the puxpose of disposal of this appeal we narrate the facts in brief.
3. The complainant posted a speed post article from the office of the Head Post Ofiice, Davanagere on 4.8.2001 to the Chief Staff Manager, Bangalore Metropoliten Transport Corporation, Shanthinagar, Bangalore, by paying a sum of 123.45 / -- towards speed post charges. The said article contained an application for the post of Conductor. But the said envelop was returned with a sherra 'Refused' on the cover of the complainant on 9.8.200 1. This fact was made known to the opponents. Since there was no response and no .. 3 _ action has been taken by the opponents, after issuing legal notice he has preferred the complaint for the relief to award a total compensation of Rs.2,52,045/ -.
4. The OPS in their version took tip the contention that the complainant was not entitled for any claim from them and there was no basis for the said claim. They also further contended that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act the said complaint was not maintainable and also pointed out the judgement of the National Commission rendered in R.P.No.986 / 96.
5. The DF on the basis of the materials placed by the parties and after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of the CPS and accordingly passed the impugned order.
6. In this appeal we heard the LC Mr.G.V.Hegde on behalf of the appellant and Mr,Revan.na Bellary on behalf of the respondent. The LC for the appellant submitted that though the contention regarding Sec.6 of the Indian Post Omce Act was raised by the opponents in their version, the DP' has nowhere considered the said contention of the CPS. According to him if said Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act has been considered by the DP', it would have dismissed the complaint following the decision rendered by the National Commission.
flew
-4...
7. We have been taken thmugh the older of the DF. Nowhere in the order the DE' has considered the point raised by the OPS. When a party has specifically raised a contention which goes to very root of the case it is the bounden duty of the DF to formulate a point for determination and to give a finding on the said point. In the present case the DP; not only flamed the point for detentnination but even not referxed to the said provision. Hence, we axe of the opinion that it is a fit case where the order of the DP' has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with i law after giving opportunity to both the parties.
We dixect the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.
If PRESIDENT' l MEMBER G'/1*