RAMGOPAL vs DIRECTOR, POSTAL SERVICES

THIS revision has been filed by the complainant Ramgopal against the order of the District Forum, Nagaur dated 22.11.1994 whereby the Complaint Case No. 201/94 filed by the complainant was dismissed. It may be mentioned that initially the complainant had filed appeal but as it was barred by limitation by seven days the complainant applied for treating the appeal as revision and accordingly the appeal was treated as revision and registered as such.

FACTS giving rise to this revision are that the complainant Ramgopal had sent a registered letter addressed to Ramniwas, s/o Saligram from Chausala Post Office on 8.2.1994. The addressee was resident of Riyan Badi. The registered letter reached Riyan Badi Post Office on 10.2.1994. It was alleged by the complainant that although the addressee was at Riyan, the registered letter was returned to the complainant by making false endorsement. It was also stated that the letter had also been opened and its secrecy had been disclosed. It was also stated that the Sub-Post Master, Riyan Badi Post Office should have kept the registered letter for seven days, but violating the rules, the same was returned to the complainant. It was also stated that the letter was also read over to the addressee. The complainant made a complaint to the Sub-Postmaster Guda Salt. The complainant also went to Sub-Postmaster, Riyan Badi, but he misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant, therefore, claim a total compensation of Rs. 61,600/-. On behalf of the Postal Deptt. version was filed wherein it was stated that the registered letter was received at Riyan Badi Post Office on 10.2.1994. It was sent for distribution on that very day through the postman who returned the registered letter with the endorsement that the addressee had gone out and it was not known when he would come back and further that information of the letter was given at the addressee''s house. The postman re-deposited the registered letter at Sub-Post Office, Riyan Ki Badi. On the next day i.e., 11.2.1994 the addressee himself came to the Sub-Post Office and he told to the Sub-Postmaster that he has not to take delivery of the letter and, therefore, the registered letter was returned to the complainant. As regards the endorsement made on the letter, it was pleaded that this endorsement was made by the clerk in the Post Office and he was wanted. It was also stated that it was the clerk''s negligence in not making the endorsement of refusal by the addressee.

The District Forum, Nagaur held that the addressee had refused to take the registered letter. The concerned member of the staff in the Post Office was given waning. The District Forum held that there was no basis before the District Forum to award compensation. As regards disclosing the secrecy of the letter, it was held that this required elaborate enquiry. From the material on record it was not proved that the letter was opened by the postal employee. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum, Nagaur dismissed the complaint.

FROM the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the registered letter had reached Riyan Badi Post Office on 10.2.1994. It was sent for distribution on that day and the employee of the Postal Department returned the registered letter with the postal endorsement that the addressee had gone out and it was not known when he would return and further that information regarding registered letter had been given at the addressee''s house. It was the version of the opposite party that on the next day i.e. on 11.2.1994 the addressee Ramniwas himself came to Sub-Post Office, Riayan Badi and the addressee told to the Sub-Postmaster that he does not want to accept the registered letter. When the addressee had himself come to Sub-Post Office, Riayan Badi on 11.2.1994 and told that he will not accept the registered letter, then the registered letter should have been returned to the complainant by the said Sub-Post Office with the endorsement of refusal. However, no endorsement of refusal was made by the Sub-Post Office, Riyan Badi. The registered letter was returned to the complainant only bearing the earlier endorsement that the addressee had gone out and it was not known when he would return and that intimation had been given at the addressee''s house about receipt of the registered letter. This was deficiency in service on the part of the Sub-Post Office, Riyan Badi that despite refusal by the addressee on 11.2.1994 to take the registered letter, the said Sub-Post Office returned the registered letter without making endorsement of refusal. It is true that warning had been given to the concerned employee, but equally inconvenience was also caused t the complainant. It may be mentioned that by this registered letter complainant''s Advocate had sent notice to Ramniwas complaining against his conduct in taking the wife of the complainant from the later''s house and the complainant had mentioned in the notice to Ramniwas that he will initiate divorce proceedings against. Smt. Bhanwari Devi. Had this notice been returned as refused, its service upon Ramniwas would have been sufficient, but it was returned without postal endorsement of refusal. The District Forum should have, therefore, awarded to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 100/-as against the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3. We agree with the District Forum that there was no material to hold that the contents of the letter had been made known to the addressee. It cannot, therefore, be held that without delivering the registered letter, its contents had been disclosed to the addressee.

WE, therefore, partly allow this revision and direct that opposite parties Nos. 1 & 3 would pay Rs. 100/-as compensation to the complainant for their deficiency in service in not returning the registered letter with the postal endorsement of refusal despite refusal having been made by the addressee on 11.2.1994 to take delivery of the registered letter. Revision partly allowed.