SAVINGS GOVT OF INDIA HARYANA Vs. PUSHPA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an authorised agent of the National Savings Organisation is a "consumer" qua his principals, under the Consumer Protection Act, is the focal question in this appeal.

(2.) The facts giving arise to the issue aforesaid are somewhat peculiar. Admittedly the complainant-respondent Smt. Pushpa Jain is an authorised agent of the Public Provident Fund Scheme floated under the National Savings Organisations at Hisar for canvassing deposits into the Fund aforesaid. According to the terms of the Agency she was entitled to a commission of 1 % on the amount of initial subscription paid into the said fund opened on the basis of her canvassing. On the 9th/11th of April, 1990, she booked one registered parcel No.260 with the Head Post-Office, Hisar addressed to Sh. Tara Singh, the then Regional Director, National Savings Organisation, Haryana at Chandigarh which contained 136 Public Provident Fund receipts. According to her the said registered parcel was not delivered at Chandigarh to the addressee due to the negligence of the postal authorities. Consequent thereto she could not receive her commission amounting to Rs.6797/- which according to her caused great mental distress apart from financial loss.

(3.) Respondent preferred the complaint entirely against the Postal Department and its officials without even remotely impleading the present appellant. On notice being issued in the said complaint the Superintendent of Post Office filed his reply denying the entire allegations and initially taking the plea that in fact the complainant had not booked any parcel on the 11th of April, 1990. It was also pointed out that in case the said parcel contained valuable documents like Public Provident Fund receipts, the same should have been necessarily insured. However, as the case proceeded further the Postal Department was able to trace the said parcel and intimated on the 22nd of March, 1991 that the same was actually delivered to the addressee on the 16th of April, 1990 and in support of the same attested copy of the receipt was produced. Thereupon, the District Forum wrote to the appellant Department seeking clarification about the receipt of the parcel and the action if any taken thereon. In reply thereto the appellant informed that an amount of Rs.5186/- had already been paid to the complainant respondent as commission and the balance of Rs.1611/- would be sent in due course after the completion of necessary formalities.