RAKESH GOEL vs Union of India

THIS appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagri, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 218/1999 entitled Shri Rakesh Goel v. Union of India and Others.

THE relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with the grievance that a registered letter addressed to him was wilfully and deliberately not delivered by the Postman to Smt. Kusum Lata, a member of his family in his absence on 14.12.1998. It was the case of the appellant that the Postman of the area, respondent No. 3 had come to the house of the appellant and has started making uncalled for inquiries from Smt. Kusum Lata about the whereabouts of the appellant and had refused to deliver a registered letter addressed to him, to any one else. THEreafter he had issued an intimation slip directing that the said dak be collected from the Post Office, Shahdara on the ground that there were special instructions from the Post Master, not to deliver any registered dak to any person other that the addressee. Accordingly, on 16.12.1998 the appellant had deputed Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta along with intimation slip and authority letter to collect the registered letter No. 052310 but the same was again not delivered to said Shri Naresh Kumar without any rhyme or reason. THE complainant had, therefore, sent a written request dated 16.12.1998 through UPC to O.P. No. 3 to deliver the said registered letter to Smt. Kusum Lata. THE said request letter dated 16.12.1998 was also delivered by hand at the Shahdara Post Office on 19.12.1998. THEreafter, again on 22.12.1998 another written request was sent by the appellant by UPC requesting the respondents to deliver the registered letter to Smt. Kusum Lata at the residence of the appellant. However, since the respondents had failed to deliver the said registered letter to the appellant, the appellant had got a legal notice, dated 26.12.1998, served on the respondents and thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the respondents to deliver the registered letter in question to the appellant or according to his instructions and also to pay damages to him to the tune of Rs. 11,100/- together with cost of proceedings. The stand of the respondents in their reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the registered letter in question could not be delivered to any person other than the addressee and as the appellant was not available at his residence at the time of the visit of the Postman the latter had left an intimation slip directing the appellant to take delivery of the registered letter from the concerned Post Office. As none had turned up to take the delivery of the aforesaid letter from the Post Office, the same had been returned to the sender after retaining it for the stipulated period and, as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and, as such, dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties at length. The short point in controversy in the present appeal is as to whether in the circumstances of the case the respondents were justified in not handing over the registered letter to Smt. Kusum Lata and thereafter also in not delivering the same to the appellant. The contention of the respondent in this regard is that as per the procedure prescribed in case of delivery of a registered letter, a Postman is required to make two attempts to deliver the same to the addressee at the premises of the addressee. However, in case the same remains undelivered then an intimation slip is to be left intimating the addressee that the same may be collected from the concerned Post Office. However, if the addressee desires he can make a written request to the Postman concerned for having the registered letter/articles, etc. delivered to an authorized representative. Therefore, in the instant case the moot point for adjudication is as to whether the appellant had given in writing to the Postman that his accountable articles including registered letters be delivered to an authorized representative as nominated by him. It is not the case of the appellant that he had given in writing to the Post Master a written request authorizing Smt. Kusum Lata to receive the registered dak on his behalf prior to the visit of the Postman. Furthermore, the contention of the appellant that he had in this particular case deputed Shri Naresh Kumar to collect the registered letter in question on the basis of the authority letter issued in his favour by the appellant, also appears to be incorrect as the appellant has failed to place on record any such document authorizing Shri Naresh Kumar to collect the letter on his behalf. The letter dated 16.12.1998 alleged to have been delivered by hand as well as sent by UPC to the respondents by the appellant is also not in the nature of an authority letter, but is more in the nature of a complaint against the Postman Mr. Babli for not delivering the registered letter in question. On the other hand the respondents have placed on record a copy of circular issued by the Dy. Director General, Post Office with regard to the procedure to be adopted in delivering accountable articles as well as the relevant portion of Clause 60 of the Post Office Guide I which prescribes a specific format vide which a person can make a request to the Post Master for the delivery of his registered letter, articles, etc. to his authorized representative. It is not the case of the appellant that he had complied with the said formalities as per the requirement of the department of the respondents. As such, in the absence of proper authorization letter the respondents were justified in not delivering the registered letter to any person other than the addressee i.e. the appellant in this case. As such, we uphold the filing of the learned District Forum in this regard. Accordingly, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.