POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, PONDICHERRY vs Mahesh Patel

THE opposite party appeals.

THE first objection taken by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that a complaint has been filed by the complainant concerning himself and also several other persons, his relatives without filing any authorisation from them and that the complaint is not valid in respect of persons other than the complainant himself. This contention is perfectly justified. In this appeal we shall deal only with the grievances of the person arrayed as complainant. It is open to the other persons referred to in the complaint to file separate complaints. As far as the complainant is concerned, his case is as follows :

A registered letter was addressed to him from Ahmedabad;, that letter was hot delivered to him as his family members and himself were ft of station except his younger brother, he received an intimation from the Post Office to the effect that a registered letter had come to him; that intimation dated 30.11.94 gave him seven days time to collect the letter ; his younger brother contacted the Post Office within a couple of days after the notice; the complainant himself on his return contacted the Post Office on 6.12.94. He was not delivered the letter nor given proper reply and ultimately he came to know that the letter has been sent back. Aggrieved by such a course of action of the opposite party the complainant came to the District Forum with the following prayers: (1) to pass an order on the Post Master Head Post Office, Pondicherry to get the above six letters delivered to him or, in the alternative, give him full details of their sender to enable him to contact them by himself and arrange for their reporting; (2) to pass an order on the Post Master, Head Post Office, Pondicherry to make good to him whatever loss that he might suffer in not being able to get him to deliver these letters in time, since he does not know what they contained and what will be the loss of it all; (3) to pass an order on the Post Master, Head Post Office, Pondicherry to pay him Rs. 1,000/ (One thousand) towards the cost of this complaint and more important towards the mental strain and agony that he was put to by the underserving acts of the Postal Department and its staff which is further aggravated by the uncertainty and delay in the matter. .

THE opposite party denied that the complainant came and contacted the office on 6.12.94 and stated that the registered letter has been sent back on 8.12.94 on the expiry of the waiting period. THE District Forum came to the conclusion that inspite of the complainant going to the Post Office on 6.12.94 the letter was not delivered to him and by way of relief it issued the following order: "THErefore, the Forum directs the opposite party to contact the Post Offices of origin giving particulars of the letters Nos. addressed to the complainant and his relations as mentioned in the letter of complainant dated 23.12.94 and get from them the addresses of the senders within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, in default to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant. If the complainant is not paid after 45 days, it shall carry interest at 12% p.a."

Aggrieved by the order the opposite party has preferred this appeal. The main contention of the appellant is that the direction as given by the District Forum is illegal. It appears that there is some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party. In the first place the relief given is not one of those which could be granted under Section 14 of the Act. Secondly, even assuming that the Post Offices were keeping a record of the persons from whom a registered letter has come to their office they have no obligation to disclose their names. Therefore the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. However we would like to point out that the notice given by the Post Office to come and collect the registered letter appears incomplete. The Number of the Registration and the place of origin of the letter are indicated. If the name of the sender is also indicated it would considerably help the addressee to guess what the matter may be about. Further when the letter could not be collected on account of the delay as it happened in this case he can very well write to the person concerned and get the information which was sought to be conveyed to him through the registered letter. The Postal Department would do well to indicate in the notice, the name of the sender as well, that will avoid cases of this nature in future.

IT is seen that the District Forum has not dealt with the second prayer of the complainant, namely compensation for non-delivery of the letter. The fact that the addressee was not at home when the postman came to deliver the registered letter is admitted by both parties the fact that an intimation regarding the letter was sent to the addressee that he may collect the letter within a period of seven days is admitted by both the parties. The only controversial point is the non-remittance of the letter when asked for within the time limit prescribed. This will be indeed a grave deficiency in service enabling the complainant to compensation. That point has to be probed. The complainant says that his brother went to the Post Office within a couple of days after the notice and that the complainant himself went to the Post Office on 6.12.94 that is to say within a period of seven days as indicated in the intimation slip and that the letter was not delivered. This is denied by the opposite party. The District Forum having not dealt with this prayer did not give a firm finding on this point. There is on record a letter dated 15.12.94 which the complainant states he has sent to the Department. Though this letter was mentioned in the complaint the opposite party has not denied the receipt of the letter. If in that letter the complainant had specifically indicated the date on which he called on the Post Office, the absence of denial would help us to reach a conclusion, that he went to collect the registered letter from the Post Office within the time limit. But in that letter he leaves the matter in a rather vague stage. Therefore, no conclusion on this vital point can be arrived at in the present state of evidence. It is therefore, necessary to hear the complainant and any other witnesses he wants to produce to substantiate the fact that he called on the Post Office before 8.12.94. For this purpose we wish to remand the case to the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order of the District Forum is set aside. The first prayer of the complainant is dismissed. The District Forum is directed to deal with the second and third prayers in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.