UNITED CHILDREN MOVEMENTS (REGD.) vs POST MASTER

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 3.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1613/2001 entitled United Children Movements (Regd.) v. THE Post Master, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he had sent a copy of the biography of Shri K.R. Narayanan by VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra vide receipt No. KB/VP-196/2001 dated 28.4.2000 through Karol Bagh Post Office, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant was to receive Rs. 800/-, the price of that book sent by him through VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra which had not been received by him from Karol Bagh Post Office despite legal notice dated 7.10.2001. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 800/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. THE appellant had also claimed damages of Rs. 5,000/- for the harassment caused to him besides litigation expenses. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the reply/written version, filed by the respondent, it was stated that the parcel in question was despatched through the respondent Post Office by VPP and the same was duly delivered by the respondent to the addressee on 4.5.2000. It was stated that the respondent Post Office had paid a sum of Rs. 800/- to the payee on 8.5.2000. It was stated in the reply/written version that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was no merit in the complaint, filed by the appellant and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents and material on record, it is not in dispute that the appellant had sent a parcel, containing a book by VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra on 28.4.2000 through the respondent Post Office. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint, filed by the appellant before the District Forum in nutshell was that the amount of Rs. 800/- being the price of the book which was to be received by the appellant after the delivery of that VPP to the addressee had not been received by him despite legal notice dated 7.10.2001. Insofar as the above contention of the appellant is concerned, the same in the given facts, in our opinion, is devoid of merit because the respondent in their reply has stated in clear-cut terms that the parcel in question, sent by VPP, was duly delivered to the addressee by the respondent Post Office and the respondent Post Office had already paid a sum of Rs. 800/- to the payee on 8.5.2000. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that in the District Forum, the appellant was shown a receipt dated 8.5.2000 vide which a sum of Rs. 800/- is stated to have been paid to the appellant. On being shown the receipt, the appellant had not denied the signature upon the same. We also with a view to satisfy ourselves have put a specific query to the appellant as to whether the said receipt actually bore his signatures. The appellant, in all fairness, has admitted that the said document had been signed by him but the plea taken by him is that the said document relates to some other parcel. We asked him to specify the details of that parcel to which that receipt related to but no such details could be given by the appellant except making the above bald statement. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned District Forum. The same, as a matter of fact, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.