SURESH BHARGAVA vs Union of India

THIS appeal has been filed by Shri Suresh Bhargava against the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum on 17.3.92. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Shri Suresh Bhargava registered a letter with the respondent for delivery in Singapore. He had enclosed in the envelop a draft for $ 1765.12 equivalent to Indian rupees 26,000/-. It was found by the postal authorities for Singapore that the addressee had shifted the residence and as such the letter could not be delivered at the address indicated by the appellant Shri Suresh Bhargava at the time of registration.

IT was held by the learned District Forum in the impugned order that the addressee has shifted elsewhere and it was not the job of the respondents or even that of the Singapore Postal Authorities to indulge in a wild goose chase. They also observed that the letter had since been delivered at the changed address there was, thus, no deficiency and as such the Forum had dismissed the complaint. The appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by the District Forum. We have gone through the record and heard both the parties. The contention of the appellant was that in case the said letter was not delivered to the addressee the same should have been delivered back to him as per provision 38 of the Indian Post Office Act, which, as per records, had not been done by the respondents. This act on the part of the respondents amounts to deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the proper and concerned party to the appeal were the Singapore Postal Authority as the registered letter involved in the dispute was sent to Singapore and that it was an admitted fact on record that the same had crossed the territory of India and as such the appeal and the complaint itself was not maintainable. This plea of the respondent has no weight as for all practical purpose the Singapore Postal Authority could at best be treated as agents of Indian Postal Authority and consequently the respondents could not evade their responsibility. This plea of the respondent was, therefore, rejected.

The respondents further drew our attention towards letter dated 14.12.90 on record which was addressed by the Senior Supdt., Air mail Sorting Division, New Delhi to the Chief Post Master I.P.H.O. Wherein it has been mentioned that the Foreign Postal Admn. of Singapore had intimated that the said letter covered by postal receipt No. 4341 had been delivered to the proper person on 5.5.90. It was also contended by the respondents that the appellant Sh. Bhargava was duly informed about this factual position on 2.1.91 vide their letter No. CRC/01/90-91 about the delivery of the letter. The appellant in support of his allegation of non-delivery of the later had submitted annexure 2 purported to be a fax message before the District Forum. We have called the records of the Forum and peruse a document which does not bear the signatures of the author. As such no reliance could be placed on the contents of this document.

IT was the version of the appellant in the documents placed before us on 3.8.90 para 7 that the addressee had moved to a new address. IT was but natural that in the case of change in address the letter could not be delivered by the Singapore Postal Authorities in the 1st instant and later on after tracing the changed address they could deliver the same on 5.5.90 and confirmed the position to their Indian Counter Parts as discussed above. It is an admitted fact on record that the addressee in Singapore had shifted his residence. It is also noteworthy that normally a person who shifts to new premises, makes arrangements for collection/receipt of his mail from his old premises for at least some period or he informs the concerned Post Office to redirect his mail to his new address. The addressee in this case appears to be a business man and he must have adopted either of the methods to secure his mail.

IT is unbelievable that in case of shifting the office he must not have made some arrangements for his mail. IT is also a practice that in the case of change of address the business man informs his customers that he has shifted his office to another place and he gives the address of that place. The complainant alleges to have sent a draft to Sh. Tara Chand at Singapore. He has not produced any proof showing that he sent that amount again to the addressee. The date when Sh. Tara Chand shifted to the new premises has also not been given by him. The letter was sent by the complainant on 28th Feb. 1990 and alleged fax message is dated 14.1.91. It is not understandable as to why Sh. Tara Chand informed the complainant after such a long time of about 11 months about the non-receipt. The envelopes contained draft of $1765.12 equivalent to Indian Rs. 26,000/-. The complainant would have reminded him through letters, telegrams or telephonic message about the non receipt. He has however, not produced any such documents or other evidence to prove such an eventuality. All the facts on record show that the story put forward by the complainant is not correct and is based on assumptions. In the light of the above discussed factual position we find no merits in the appeal and the same stands rejected. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.