State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pravar Adikshak Dakghar & Another vs Prahlad Singh Advocate on 29 May, 2023
Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023
210 of 2018 Vs.
Sh. Prahlad Singh
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 28.11.2018
Date of Final Hearing: 18.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2023
First Appeal No. 210 / 2018
1. Superintendent of Post Office
Dehradun Circle, Dehradun
2. Chief Post Office
Jwalapur, Indian Postal Department
Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Advocate)
....Appellants
Vs.
Sh. Prahlad Singh, Advocate
Chamber No. 275 A, District and Session Court, Haridwar
District Haridwar
....None for Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order 29.10.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 266 of 2015 styled as Prahlad Singh Vs. S.S.P.O.S and others, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the 1 Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023 210 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Prahlad Singh opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges to the complainant within one month from the date of judgment.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as such that the respondent - complainant (in short 'respondent') has dispatched a notice to Charanjeet Singh Pahwa S/o Late Sh. Dharamchand Pahwa R/o H.No. A/6, Shyamnagar Colony, Kassabaan, Jwalapur, Thana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar through registered post after paying charges as Rs. 28/- and a receipt to this effect bearing No. RV4256137188IN was issued to the respondent. It is further averred that the notice / letter was any important document which relates to the dishonor of the cheque wherein the time is very material and notice for bounced cheque has to be delivered once and the same cannot be given again. The employee of the opposite party No. 2 went to deliver the registered post only one time on dated 16.05.2015 and the employee of the post office has not tried to go there again for delivery of the registered post. Thus, the said act was deliberate and with malafide intention because of which the notice could not be served on the given address. The opposite parties adopting deficiency in service had remarked on the envelope that the addressee is not traceable, hence returned. In the complaint, the respondent has further averred that the value of dishonored cheque was to the tune of Rs. Ten Lacs and the respondent has fixed Rs. 90,000/- as remuneration from his client Smt. Shobha but by the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the respondent had to suffer financial loss and mental agony, therefore, the respondent has brought the complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite parties - appellants (in short 'appellants') in their written statement have averred that it is true the respondent booked / sent a letter through registered post. An inquiry was made in the matter wherein it was found that as per the report of the Post Office Inspector, Haridwar 2 Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023 210 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Prahlad Singh two different colonies namely Shyamnagar Colony and Kassbaan are two different areas in the P.S. Shyamnagar and Kassbaan area. The postman concerned tried to deliver the post but the address was not traceable, then a lot of time was consumed in its inquiry. The postman of the Shyamnagar Colony has also tried to trace the address, but the same address was not traceable inspite of several efforts. Thus, inspite of several efforts of the postman concerned, the address as mentioned in the registered post was not traceable on the spot. As per Section 6 of The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms by undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Thus, the contentions of the respondent are false and baseless; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants' department, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District commission after perusing the material and evidence available on record passed the judgment and order 29.10.2018 wherein it was held as under:-
"ifjokn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd osa vkns"k dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ifjoknh dks vadu 50]000@&:0 dh /kujkf"k crkSj {kfriwafrZ ,oa okn O;; ds :i esa Hkqxrku djuk lqfuf"pr djsaA"
5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties - appellants. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 3 Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023 210 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Prahlad Singh impugned judgment dated 29.10.2018 is against law and contrary to the evidences and facts available on record. It is further argued that the District Commission ignored the fact that a registered letter No. RV426137188IN was received at Jwalapur Post Office on 15.05.2015 which was sent by the respondent to the address named Sh. Charanjeet Singh Pahawa R/o A/6 Shyamnagar Colony, Kassaban, Jwalapur. It is further averred that both Kassaban and Shyamnagar Colony are different areas. On 15.05.2015 the concerned employees of the appellants department of area of Shyamnagar Colony has also tried to deliver the said post on dated 16.05.2015, but due to non-availability of the address of the recipients at both the places the said letter was sent back to the sender. Hence, in such circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part appellants' department, yet orders were passed against the appellants department by the sub-ordinate Commission, which is contrary to the judicial process and against the law.
The District Commission has also ignored the fact that on the envelope of the said registered post it was remarked that as person searched, not found and passed the impugned order which is a great mistake. It is further contended that the District Commission has nowhere made it clear in its entire order that the recipient resides at the same address or any such witness has not proved this fact, therefore, this remark is very malicious and committed a grave error in passing the order. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service hence the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence the appeal is being heard ex- parte against the respondent.
7. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is an advocate, who has sent a registered envelope No. RV4256137188IN on dated 14.05.2015 by 4 Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023 210 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Prahlad Singh paying Rs. 28/-. It is also admitted fact that the said registered envelope of notice was returned back from the appellants to the respondent. It is also admitted fact that such registered notice was available on record of the Commission below and a report was affixed, therefore, the recipient is not traceable.
8. We have perused the impugned judgment. The District Commission has stated that the respondent has proved his case by relevant evidence, but it is not clear as to what papers were available on record in support of the findings of the District Commission in accordance of which, the learned Commission below came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved his case that the recipient resides at the same address which is mentioned on the envelope. In the Commission, the respondent has not filed any such witness, who might come before the Commission by submitting his affidavit that the area Kassaban and Shyamnagar Colony is the same area and these areas are not two different areas. Whereas the appellants have stated in the appeal that both Kassaban and Shyamnagar Colony are two different areas and on dated 16.05.2015, the employee of the appellants' department tried to deliver the registered letter in Kassaban area as well as and the postman of Shyamnagar Colony also tried to deliver the same letter in Shyamnagar Colony, but non-availability of the recipient at both the places, the said letter was sent back to the sender. The appellants have submitted the relevant evidence in the appeal record (paper Nos. 21 & 22).
9. It is an admitted fact that the registered envelope was returned on the basis that the recipient is not traceable inspite of several efforts. On the record, the respondent has failed to prove before the Commission below that the Kassaban and Shyamnagar Colony are the same area.
10. We are of the view that if the address of recipient is not traceable, then in such circumstances, the appellants cannot be held guilty for not 5 Appeal No. Superintendent of Post Office 29.05.2023 210 of 2018 Vs. Sh. Prahlad Singh delivering the registered envelope to the recipient. Thus, we find that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellants department. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 is hereby set aside and the consumer complaint shall stand as dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
12. Statutory amount deposited by the appellants in the appeal be returned to the appellants.
13. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
14. Appeal file be consigned to the record room alongwith a copy of this Judgment.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 29.05.2023 6