Union Of India vs Achintam Kilikdar on 26 August, 2009
If we read Ex.A6 coupled with
Ex.A3 that makes crystal clear, that the Postman had given instruction to the
person in the address, and the complainant alone failed to claim the letter,
producing necessary certificate regarding the address, thereby they have
committed deficiency in service, not the opposite parties. For the retention of the letter for 50 days
in the Post Office, the second opposite party cannot perse branded, as
deficiency in service, as incorrectly held by the District Forum. When the Postman had given instruction,
awaiting request for delivery, probably to help the addressee, they have
retained the speed post, that will not come within the meaning of deficiency in
service. If they have not given any information
that can be faulted, that too, not by the complainants, who are not the
beneficiaries coming within the meaning of consumers, which is supported by a
ruling of the National Commission in Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Achintam Kilikdar, reported in IV [2009]
CPJ 97 [NC], wherein it is held, beneficiary means other than the person,
who hires or avails service for consideration, would fall within definition of
consumer, when service availed by hirer with approval of beneficiary of service
for consideration, which is absent in this case. As ruled by the above decision, and for the
reasons assigned supra, we conclude that there was no deficiency in service and
the complainants are not consumers and unfortunately the District Forum
exceeding its jurisdiction, assuming it has every power on earth, unnecessarily
punish the opposite party, which should be protected, erasing the order, for
which, the appeal deserves acceptance.