NIRANJAN PADHI vs SUB-POST MASTER, CITY POST OFFICE

THE complainant in this case has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/-alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. His case in the complaint petition is that he had sent a registered letter with acknowledgement due and obtained a receipt from the Post Office bearing No. 1300 dated 11.3.93. But he did not receive any acknowledgement card waiting for a pretty long time. He lodged the complaint on 26.3.93 before the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur on receipt of which the complainant was called upon to produce the certified or xerox copy of the said postal receipt for facilitating the enquiry in that behalf. THE complainant alleges that he sent a true copy of the postal registration receipt. But ignoring the receipt thereof the Postal Department again wrote to him to send certified or xerox copy of the registration receipt. In the said letter, vide Annexure 5 it was also mentioned that no letter for registration appears to have been received at the Berhampur City Post Off ice in question on 11.3.93, but kept the matter open for further enquiry if the certified or xerox copy of the postal receipt is submitted before them. THE complainant thereafter has approached this Commission for compensation alleging that there has been deficiency. In a show cause filed by the opposite party No. 2, the liability of the Postal Department has been stoutly denied. It has been stated in the show cause that the complainant himself quoted the Post Office from which the registered letter was sent. According to the complainant, the letter was registered at the City Post Office of Berhampur, whereas, on enquiry it was revealed that the said letter was registered at Courtpeta Post Office. THEy have explained that because of the wrong information, the complainant was informed that no registered letter appears to have been received at the City Post Office as alleged in his complaint petition. THEy have stated in the show cause that the proceeding is a speculative one and is liable to be dismissed.

GOING into the merits of the matter is unnecessary in view of the National Commission''s observation in Revision Petition No. 175 of 1992 and Revision Petition No. 247 of 1992 that the services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability. It has been further emphasised that establishing the Post Offices and running postal service the Central Government performs a Governmental function and the Government does not engage in commercial transaction and the charges for the articles transmitted by post is in the nature of charges imposed by the State for the enjoyment of facilities provided by the postal department and not in consideration of any commercial contract. In the aforesaid circum stances, the complainant will not be a consumer as defined in the Act and, therefore, the dispute is not entertainable by this Commission. That apart on merits also we do not think that the complainant has got any case worth considering. In the annexures to the complaint petition as well as in the complaint petition it has been categorically stated that a letter was registered from the City Post Office. The stamp on the postal receipt, xerox copy of which has been filed alongwith the complaint petition is not clear as to from which Post Office the same was sent. But in the show cause it has been stated by the opposite parties that the number under which the letter was registered was from Courtpeta Post Office and not from City Post Office. That apart, the allegation is confined to the non-receipt of the A/D form and nothing has been stated about the non-receipt of the letter by the addressee which was registered. In the aforesaid circumstances there is no merit in the case of the complainant and the same is dismissed. Mr. Biswanath Rath, Member-I agree. Complaint dismissed. _____________