State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India & Ors. vs Sh. Prem Jeet Singh on 18 December, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 226/2006. Date of Decision 18.12.2008. 1.
Union of India, through Secretary (P&T), Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg, New Delhi.,
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Post Telegraph, SDA Complex Kasumpti, District Shimla, HP.,
3. Sub Post Master, General Post Office Mandi, District Mandi, HP.,
4. Sub Post Master under Road Sewri Mumbai.,
5. Concerned Postman C/o Sub Postmaster GPO Bunder Road Sewri Mumbai.
..Appellants.
Versus Prem Jeet Singh S/o Sh.
Swaroop Singh R/o H.No. 17/5 Palace Colony Mandi Town, Distt. Mandi, HP Prop of M/s Tonny Enterprises, Indira Market Mandi, HP.
.Respondent.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Whether Approved for reporting? No. For the Appellants. Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate For the Respondent. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Looking to the controversy involved in this case, it is felt that the impugned order does not call for any interference in this appeal.
2. To be fair to Mr. Arora learned counsel for the appellants his submissions need to be noted. Per him at best respondent was entitled to a maximum of Rs. 1,000/- or double the amount of the speed post charges. Mr. Arora further pointed out that sum of Rs. 100/- stands already paid by his clients to the respondent.
3. It is high time that the public functionaries like appellants come out of slumber and start discharging their duties efficiently, keeping in view the competitive market that is coming up. In this behalf I have no hesitation in observing that the private courier service could only flourish when consumers/customers like respondent felt, that the appellants as service providers were lethargic and were not concerned for the welfare of the public at large in the discharge of their duties.
4. Mr. Arora Further submitted without conceding, that in any case compensation of Rs.
500/- could not have been levied even if worst case is taken against his clients. This plea is being noted simply to be rejected. For the simple reason that the appellants cannot justify their acts of omission and commission by taking shelter under the provisions of Government Notifications issued by Government of India, under Indian Post Offices Act, 1898. Instead of efficient and good service being their hallmark, by filing the present appeal the appellants are trying to justify their acts of omission and commission as well as inaction on the part of its staff. It may be further clarified here that purpose of sending speed post is to ensure quick and speedy delivery of the article sent, and not getting embroiled in litigation as is the situation in the present case.
5. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the deposited amount by the appellants may be released to his client. This prayer appears to be innocuous. Accordingly it is ordered that the amount deposited by the appellants with upto date interest accrued on it will be remitted by the office to the respondent Sh. Prem Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Swaroop Singh, at his address as given in the memo of parties.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
18th December, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
d.kZ* President.