LAXMI NARAYAN THAKUR vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATIALA

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Patiala dated October 26, 1994 whereby a complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed, for the claim for Rs. 10,000/- with interest.

THE appellant-complainant handed over four envelopes (registered envelopes as purchased from the Post Office) containing Rs. 2500/- each under registered and insured over for being sent to some village in the State of Bihar. THE Post Office, Patiala accepted the same and when they were to be delivered at the destination, it was found that the envelopes had been tampered with and the delivery was not accepted by the addressee. Ultimately, the envelopes were returned to Patiala Post Office and the complainant again refused to accept the envelopes on the ground that they had been tampered with. According to the allegations of the complainant, the currency notes of the value of Rs. 10,000/- put in the four envelopes were removed and some waste papers were added. On notice of complaint having been given to the opposite-parties, reply was filed controverting the allegations of the complainant. Better statement of the complainant was also recorded and it was thereafter, the impugned order was passed. A finding was recorded that envelopes produced before the Forum were not tampered with.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that as per rules and regulations applicable in the Post Office Registered Insured envelopes were to be tied with thread whereupon seal was to be put. This rule was complied with when four envelopes were handed over to the Post Office at Patiala. Subsequently, when the envelopes were produced before the District Forum, they were not the same envelopes as no thread was found on the envelopes. Seals according to him were put afresh and envelopes were subsequently changed. It is also argued that in fact envelopes were handed over to the Post Office on June 27, 1992. However, in the written statement, the stand taken up by the Post Office was that they were despatched to Bihar on June 29, 1992. The fraud was played probably during this span of time with the connivance of some Harbir Singh, who had put writing on the envelopes and this Harbir Singh was deputed to work in the premises or outside the premises of the Post Office.

AT the outset, it may be stated that the plea of fraud as now being urged cannot be gone into. Such plea requires detailed evidence to be recorded. The District Forum on examination of the envelopes produced gave a finding that the same were not tempered with. We have gone through the complaint as well as the better statement of the complainant recorded before the District Forum and we notice that it was not at all stated that these envelopes were changed. The only plea taken, which is reiterated in his statement is that the envelopes were tampered with. The plea is falsified on perusal of three envelopes which are on the record. No doubt, they do not contain any thread vide which as per rule as alleged they were to be tied. From that no assumption can be drawn that the registered envelopes handed over by the complainant in fact contain such a thread. If thread had been removed, it would have certainly defaced the seal put thereon. In none of the three envelopes produced, this is the position with respect to any of the seals much less any such seal in the centre of the envelopes. We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we affirm that when the letters were originally handed over to the Post Office they remained in the same position at the time of delivering the same. It also transpires that by the time the registered envelopes reached the place of destination, the complainant also reached there and warned the addressee not to accept the envelopes as they had been tempered with. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the complainant was to go to Bihar from Patiala and never wanted to carry currency note with him and in fact wanted to send it through Post Office, how he happened to know immediately on reaching Bihar to warn the addressee not to accept the envelopes that they had been tempered with is not understandable. The only conclusion on the material produced is that in fact the complainant has approached the District Forum in order to dishonestly extract money from the Post Office. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- so that unscrupulous person would not have courage to take resort to the provisions of this Act in this manner. Appeal dismissed with costs.