SURESH BHARGAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.