NATVARLAL A. JANI vs Union of India

-THIS appeal arises from order dated 5.9.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 948 of 1998. We have heard the learned Advocate for the opponent postal department and the appellant being the original complainant-party in person. We have gone through the impugned order. We have also gone through the memorandum of appeal.

IT would appear that the complainant sent money order to opponent No. 4 company with a view to get copy of the Articles of Association of the said company. The company has refused the money order. The complainant, therefore, sent a registered communication to the opponent No. 4 company for the said purpose and the same was also refused. The complainant thereafter sent registered letter vide postal receipt dated 28.11.1997 of Shastrinagar Post Office through Advocate Mr. U.I. Shah. The said article was delivered to the opponent No. 4 company whose concerned officer played mischief of opening the cover, going through the contents and then refusing the article which was returned by the postman in opened condition. Upon receipt of the article by Mr. U.I. Shah in opened condition without A.D. attached with the cover, the complainant addressed letter dated 16.12.1997 to the Post Master, Ahmedabad intimating him about the mischief played by the concerned postman being opponent No. 3 postman in collusion with concerned officer/employee of the opponent No. 4 company. He prayed for making inquiry into the matter and to supply copy of the list of registered articles kept with the concerned postman. He also prayed for appropriate compensation in the matter. Since no reply was given from the office of the Postmaster, Ahmedabad, complainant had to send reminders dated 7.1.1998 and 5.2.1998. Thereafter, the Customer Care Centre under the control of the said authority of the Postal department wrote letter dated 12.4.1998 informing the complainant that there was no bad intention on the part of the concerned postman. However, the requisite details were not furnished. Complainant, therefore, issued notice dated 28.4.1998/4.5.1998 to 2nd opponent who gave reply dated 12.5.1998 reiterating the earlier reply dated 17.4.1998. The complainant, therefore, sent notice through Advocate Mr. C.D. Soni on 30.5.1998, with no consequence. The complainant alleged that he was under stress and suffered great deal of damage in view of such deficiency on the part of opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. First two opponents filed affidavit in reply raising dispute that the complaint could not be entertained, that the matter was investigated by the Competent Authority and necessary steps were being taken, that the allegations made by the complainant were denied and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the said opponents.

After considering the material placed on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that by virtue of Section 6 of the Post Office Act, first two opponents would not be liable to answer the claim in the complaint. Decision of the National Commission in that respect was also referred to. However, on going through the detailed facts of the case, it would clearly appear that the complainant did receive the last mentioned registered cover in torn condition for which the opponents did not render any factual explanation before the learned Forum. The allegations of the complainant were specific in this respect. According to him, opponent No. 3 postman was in collusion with one of the employees of opponent No. 4 company who was interested in looking into the contents of the cover and in seeing that the cover was sent back to the complainant after getting information about the contents thereof. In our considered opinion for such deficiency in service the opponent postal department will be answerable at least to the extent of statutory amount of Rs. 100/- as observed in the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 202 of 1999 decided on 28.11.2001, in which also decision of the National Commission has been referred to.

WITH regard to cost of complaint, the National Commission has consistently awarded cost in favour of the aggrieved consumers against the postal department in such cases. In view of the aforesaid facts and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to pass following order. ORDER Impugned order dated 5.9.2002 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 948 of 1998 is hereby set aside. Opponent Postal Department is directed to pay to the complainant statutory amount of Rs. 100/- and cost which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- in all Rs. 1,100/- within four weeks from today. Insofar as complainant''s case vis-a-vis the other parties are concerned, complainant has taken criminal proceeding as also other proceedings and, therefore, without going into the detailed allegations of collusion and fraud which are subject matter of those proceedings, we pass no order against such opponents. This appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.