G VENKATESAN vs Post Master Head Post Office Chengalpattu

THE complainant in O.P. No. 10/1999 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant. His case was as follows : He was an employee of David Rees Leprosy Hospital, Yerpedu Post, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. He booked 4 registered articles with ackowledgement due in the opposite party post office on 5.12.1995. They are addressed to Chittoor District based addresses. Of the 4 registered articles, he had not received the acknowledgement due in respect of one addressed to Mr. William H. Roland, Additional Director, David Rees Leprosy Hospital, Yerpedu Post, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. The complainant sent letters to the opposite party on 28.12.1995 and 30.1.1996 seeking an inquiry in the matter. No action had been taken. The complainant who was an employee in the above said hospital was dismissed from service on 16.11.1995. He had sent a representation to Mr. William H. Roland, which was a very important communication regarding his loss of employment and the letter not having reached the person concerned, he had been adversely affected. Right from June 1992, the Postal Department had been delaying and not delivering several communications sent by him. There was deficiency in service and the opposite party was liable to pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.

THE opposite party resisted the claim. The letter with regard to which the complainant had made the complaint was dated 5.12.1995 which was more than 3 1/2 years prior to the date of filing of the complaint. The rules of the department provided that records relating to registered letters at the point of issue/delivery be preserved for 1 1/2 years from the date of the mails as provided under Rule 25 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part I. Since the complaint relates to a period which was more than 2 years, the records were not available at the office of issue as they had been weeded out after the prescribed period of preservation. The complainants mental agony was basically attributed to his fight for his cause with his former employer. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. 3. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint by order dated 22.11.1999. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE rule provides for preservation for only a period of 1 1/2 years from the date of mailing and in the instant case, it was more than 3 1/2 years since the registered article in question had been booked by the complainant. The records had already been weeded out and it was not possible to make any inquiry. In view of the specific rules providing for the preservation of the records and the record concerned in the present proceedings not being available, the District Forum rightly held that it was not possible to find out as to what happened to the registered article booked by the complainant on 5.12.1995. In such circumstances, the District Forum rightly held that no deficiency in service was established.

WE do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.