PARAMJIT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Navjeevan Pharmacy has filed this complaint through its proprietor Sh. Paramjit Kumar under Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C. P. Act ). Navjeevan Pharmacy Works consists of factory of Ayurvedic Medicines at plot No.366, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Haryana and International Ayurvedic Business of treating the overseas patients through its Ayurvedic Theraphy. The complainant has been operating International Ayurvedic business for more than 25 years and has gained popularity in many foreign countries where it has established organizations to treat overseas patients through competent agents and doctors by applying Ayurvedic treatment to the sufferers of chronic diseases.

(2.) In Para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has averred that he has built up his entire foreign business through Post Box No.40 which he has been operating for more than 25 years. Lacs of brochures of Navjeevan Pharmaceutical Works have been sent to the foreign countries during the past 25 years having the address of Post Box No.40, Chandigarh, as a result of this thousands of agents and patients correspond on this address from all over the world. This Post Box has been renewed every year with the payment of renewal fee which is deposited at the G. P. O. , Sector 17, Chandigarh annually before 31st March. The O. P. No.2, Senior Post Master, G. P. O. , Sector 17, Chandigarh sent an advance intimation for the renewal of the Post Box fee for the year 1997-98. It has been averred in the Para 3 of the complaint that the renewal fee has been deposited by the complainant regularly every year within the specified time and receipts of payment of the last five years are annexed as Annexures C-1/a to C-1/e. On receiving the intimation from the O. P. No.2, Senior Post Master, G. P. O. , Sector 17, Chandigarh, a sum of Rs.150/- was deposited in cash at counter No.8 in G. P. O. as renewal fee in advance for Post Box No.40 for the year 1997-98. The said amount was deposited on 19th March i. e.12 days before the expiry date. A computerized receipt of Rs.150/- bearing No.117396 has been annexed as Annexure C-2.

(3.) After several weeks of deposit of the fee for year 1997-98, the complainant received a memo No. G-9/post Office/ch/0/96-97 dated 16.4.1996 regarding cancellation Post Box No.40 for the non payment of renewal/annual charges, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-3. It has been averred in Para 6 of the complaint that in order to undo this wrongful action of the O. Ps. , the complainant addressed a letter of protest to the Post Master, G. P. O. , Sector 17, Chandigarh (O. P. No.3) dated 2.6.1997. Copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure C-4. Despite the receipt of letter No. SP-1861/1997 dated 2.6.1997, Annexure C-4, by the concerned Post Master of the Post Office, complainant's Post Box No.40 was allotted to one Sh. Karan J. Kumar, S. C. F.23, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh vide Office Memo No. G-9/post Box/40 dated 21.7.1997 fraudulently and wilfully. The complainant has averred that besides the allotment of the Post Box to some other party, even the old lock of Post Box was replaced with a new one without assigning any reasons and giving any intimation to the complainant. The keys of the new lock were handed over to the new allottee, Sh. Karan J. Kumar despite the fact that keys of old lock was still in possession of the complainant and its renewal fee was already paid by the complainant. It has been averred in Para 10 of the complaint that the cancellation of the Post Box No.40 was illegal intentional and wilful. The allotment of Post Box No.40 to Sh. Karan J. Kumar tentamounts to extraordinary favour by going out of the way and by discarding all postal rules and regulations and further by replacing the old lock of the Post Box in question with a new one without assigning any reason is nothing but a planned conspiracy and deficiency in service on the part of the O. P. No.3. The complainant also sent a detailed and well reasoned letter to various higher authorities i. e. Director General, Post and Telegraphs Dak and Tar Bharwan, New Delhi and Post Master General, Chandigarh through registered cover dated 31.1.1997, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-5. He also filed a civil suit challenging the said order of cancellation in which the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 15.10.1997 appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the Post Box No.40, but O. P. No.3 disobeyed and obstructed the execution of said order and accordingly Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 18.10.1997 before the Hon'ble Court, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-6, and is reproduced as under : "in the Court of Sh. Jasbir Singh S. J. I. C. , Chandigarh paramjit Kumar V/s. Karanjit Kumar and Ors. Report of the Local Inspection sir, pursuance to the order dated 15.10.1997 passed by this Hon'ble Court I went to inspect the Post Box No.40, at G. P. O. Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh as mentioned in the order at 1.45 p. m. My report is as under : i reached at 1.45 p. m. at G. P. O. , Sector-17, Chandigarh and before inspection I served the notice on Sh. L. K. Mishra, Sr. Post Master, G. P. O. , Sector-17, Chandigarh who after reading the notice and instead of taking it, returned the notice saying that it should be in the receipt counter. "i gave the notice to Smt. Kiran, clerk of the receipt branch at 2.45 p. m. on 17.10.1997 who signed the notice. She put up the file before Sh. L. K. Mishra. He told us to first inspect the Post Box No.40 whether that is operatable or not with the key available with the Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff gave me the key No.3054 to operate the Post Box No.40. I tried to operate the box, belt was not operatable. " Then I demanded the file relating to Post Box No.40, from Mr. L. K. Mishra, to that he again read the order of the Court and uttered at under : "court does not know how to Pass Orders" after this he threw the notice and Court order on the table saying that file will be shown only after close of the work of the day after 4 O'clock. I requested him that I cannot wait upto 4 p. m. and he should comply with the Court order by deputing a concerned clerk to show the file to me. To that he again said that file will not be shown before 4 p. m. and you can do whatever you like. I along with the Counsel for the plaintiff returned without examining the Commission as file was not shown by Sh. L. K. Mishra, Sr. Post Master, G. P. O. , Sector 17, Chandigarh. Copy of the notice and order of the Court is attached. Submitted by : chandigarh. (Ms. Seema Anand)Dated 18.10.1997 advocate local Commissioner" the said suit however, became infructuous in pursuance of memo No. G.9/post Box/97-98 dated 10.12.1997 issued by the O. P. vide which Post Box No.40 was restored to the complainant making an excuse that the same was erroneously allotted to one Sh. Karan J. Kumar, copy of the said memo has been annexed as Annexure C-7. The relevant portion of the Annexure C-7 is reproduced as under : "department of Post (India)Office of the Sr. Postmaster chandigarh - 160017. Memo No. : G-9/post Box/97-98 dtd. at Ch. The 10.12.1997. Renewal charges for Post Box No.40 of Sec - 17, Chandigarh G. P. O. for the year 1997-98 were credited by M/s. Navjiwan Pharmacy, 108/8a, Chandigarh at the multi-purpose machine counter at Chandigarh GPO on 29.3.1997 under head unclassified receipts who is the allottee of this Post Box long back. The credit of renewal fee of the said Post Box could not be traced so the above said Post Box was cancelled and allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar, SCF 23/sec-9c, Chandigarh - 160017 vide this Office Memo No. G-9/post Box/40 dtd.27.7.1997. Post Box 40 erroneously allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar is hereby cancelled and allotted to M/s. Navjiwan Pharmacy, 108/8-A, Chandigarh, the old renter with immediate effect to rectify the error. New Post Box No. to Sh. Karanjit Kumar is being allotted separately. Sd/-Sr. Postmaster, chandigarh-160017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "