SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Petition No.2186 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, 'Act ') against the impugned order/judgment dated 3.1.2013, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (short, "State Commission ") in First Appeal No.1316/2012.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant had applied for allotment of a residential plot of 6 Marlas in Sector -57, Gurgaon to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, vide application No.11938 registered as G -57, 256681. For further correspondence the address in the application was given as H.No.569, Sector -19, Faridabad of respondent no.1 's son -in -law and he had authorized Shri Manoj Kumar to receive all letters on his behalf from postal authorities. On the draw of lots, the plot of land was not allotted to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 came to know that a registered letter containing refund of earnest money of Rs.51,030/ - was sent by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 at his given address i.e. H. No.569, Sector -19, Faridabad. However, neither the registered letter was delivered to the authorized person of the respondent no.1, by the postman of the office of the petitioner no.1, nor was it returned to the respondent no.2.

(3.) SHRI Manoj Kumar had addressed a complaint letter dated 28.12.2004 to respondent no.1 narrating the entire episode and even after the said complaint, the postman neither delivered the said registered letter to Manoj Kumar, Attorney of Shri Mahabir Parshad, respondent no.1 nor returned the said registered letter to the respondent no.2.