R S DHULL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar declining to intervene and relegating the appellant to any other competent authority.

(2.) The facts are not in serious dispute. The appellant had got dispatched a registered parcel containing eatable and clothes to his daughter Miss Renu Dhull living at Vientesa (USSR) on the 10th of December, 1990. The firm allegation made was that the said parcel was never dispatched from Hisar and only 2 years later on the 26th of June, 1993 a Postman had come to him with the said parcel and demanded Rs.219/- being the cost of that parcel. However, he had refused to accept the same as the parcel was in a sordid state and no contents thereof were available. Aggrieved against the respondent-Post Office appellant preferred a complaint claiming Rs.4200/- as the value of the articles in the parcel alongwith interest and further compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony etc.

(3.) On notice being issued the respondent- department took up the plea that since the parcel was dispatched in 1990, the relevant record has since been destroyed and a reply on its basis could not be made. However, it was averred that this parcel was received back from U. S. S. R. on the 14th of May, 1993 with the remarks of being unattended or undelivered and as per the rules the complainant was required to pay Rs.219/- towards custom duty charges recoverable under Sec.24-A of the Indian Post Office Act read with Sec.3 of the Custom Act. It was the firm case that the parcel as a matter of fact had reached its destination but the addressee had refused to accept the same as she was not ready to pay Rs.219/- towards custom duty charges therefor. The complainant-appellant filed a replication reiterating his stand and taking the curious plea in the consumer jurisdiction that the Custom Act, 1878 and the Indian Post Office Act are unconstitutional, null and void and are not binding on him.