PARASURAM SAHOO vs POST MASTER, HOWRAH GENERAL POST OFFICE

THE appeal is directed against order dated 8.4.1999 passed by the Forum dismissing the complaint petition.

THE complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 5,500/- from his office address i.e., c/o Kamikcha Singh, Rajdhani Kitchen, Eastern Railway, Howrah by registered insurance dated 27.6.1994 from Howrah R.S. THE addressee was a resident of Balia, U.P. THE addressee sent an information to the sender complaining non-receipt of said cover. Upon receipt of this information the complainant entered into several correspondences with the Postal Authority but without any result. So he approached the Forum claiming refund of the money together with interest and damages. The case was contested by the department by filing a written version wherein it has been stated that the said insured letter was correctly booked and despatched to its destination but the addressee refused to accept the same on the plea that the same was in suspicious condition. They have raised the question of maintainability of the case.

It appears that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that a registered cover was booked from Howrah R.S. on 27.6.1994 but it was not delivered to the addressee. Nor could it be sent to the sender because of the fact that the sender did not give any specific address. The Forum found that the complainant has his own address at 84, Bon Behari Bose Road, Ramkrishnapur, Howrah. But he did not mention it in the insured cover. In the insured cover the address has been given as follows : C/o Kamikcha Singh, Rajdhani Kitchen, Eastern Railway, Howrah.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this address is too vague and indefinite to locate the sender of the insured covers. It is not known why the complainant had chosen to give this address in the insured cover though he has his own address at a different place. THE insured cover could not be delivered to the sender because of vagueness in the address. Ultimately the registered cover found its way to the Returned Letter Office (R.L.O.) where it was opened and repasted. THE said cover was found to contain 10 pieces of blank white papers in folded condition. It was argued before the Forum and before this Commission as well that the complainant attempted to defraud the department by putting in blank sheets of papers instead of putting currency notes. In this connection it may be mentioned that it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion on this point without thorough inquiry. THE complainant has not produced any letter of the addressee alleging non-receipt of the insured cover. Anyway we find that the insured cover ultimately found its way to the Returned Letter Office, Calcutta because it could not be delivered to the sender even for non-specification of his address. THE Forum examined the insured cover and took note of the fact that it weighed differently at different stages. On the basis of these discrepancies in weight it has been sought to establish that there has been fraudulent attempt on the part of the sender viz., the complainant to cheat the department. Here again no definite conclusion could be arrived at on this allegation because of insufficient material. But the fact remains that the complainant entered into correspondences with the department for the last time on 7.10.1994. Thereafter he did not pursue the matter. The present petition has been filed on 29.4.1997. The complaint petition was not supported by any petition for condonation of delay. It appears that during the pendency of the litigation the complainant has filed a petition on 17.12.1998 praying for condonation of delay. The Forum observed that there is no provision for condoning the delay in filing a complaint petition. In that view of the matter the Forum held quite rightly that the case is barred by limitation. Having considered the matter in all its aspects we think that the Forum has come to a correct conclusion and no interference is necessary. Consequently we dismiss the appeal with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for redress of his grievances. The appeal fails and is dismissed on contest. Appeal dismissed.