UNION OF INDIA Vs. RASIKLAL D BATHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order dated 27.11.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar in Complaint Application No.54 of 2001 is hereby set aside. Instead, the opponent Postal Department (appellant herein) is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.100/- by way of compensation and Rs.1,500/- by way of cost of complaint inclusive of compensation for hardship. The opponent Postal Department will pay the amount as stated above within four weeks from today. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no further order as to costs. (Para 5)ORDER this appeal arises from order dated 27.11.2001 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar in Complaint Application No.54 of 2001. It was the case of the complainant before the learned Forum that a registered A. D. envelope was sent by the complainant on 24.9.2000 to the addressee and the cover was returned by the opponent Postal Department with the endorsement 'not found' but the envelope was found not to be duly sealed and was found to have been opened by someone. The complainant asserted that one of the postal communications was received by the addressee at the same address whereas the other one, viz. the envelope in question was returned with the endoresement 'not found' raising a great deal of suspicion about collusion of concerned employee of the Postal Department with the addressee. The complainant, therefore, claimed compensation before the learned Forum. The opponent did not resist the complaint by appearing before the learned Forum and filing written statement. The learned Forum accepted the version of the complainant and directed the opponent Postal Department to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship and cost quantified at Rs.500/- over and above the registration charges in the sum of Rs.19/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the order.

(2.) The opponent Postal Department has subjected the aforesaid order to challenge in this appeal and has contended that the learned Forum issued notice on 11.7.2001 and it was served on the opponent on 12.7.2001 saying the next date of hearing having been fixed on 21.7.2001. The authorised person of the opponent Postal Department attended the office of the learned Forum on 21.7.2001 but he was informed that the Forum was not working on that day and he would be informed about the next date. It is under such circumstances that the matter went ex parte against the opponent Postal Department. On merits it has been contended that the opponent Postal Department was under exemption under Sec.6 of the Post Office Act, 1898 coupled with Rules framed under the relevant provisions of the said Act. On fact it has been contended that upon written complaint having been received from the complainant, inquiry was held and statement of the concerned postman was recorded. After inquiry on 23.11.2000, the Dy. Manager of the opponent Postal Department telephonically explained to the complainant about the fate of the inquiry. The complainant was satisfied with the explanation and the case was closed as per the procedure.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent Postal Department. No one remained present for the original complainant in spite of repeated notices. He has, however, sent written arguments inter alia saying that he had been a practising Advocate and that the deliveryman of the opponent Postal Department committed serious lapse as alleged in the complaint. He has also prayed for lifting the stay granted in this appeal. He has, however not made any reference to the decisions of the National Commission referred to in the memorandum of appeal.