SUPDT OF POST OFFICES Vs. SIDHARTHA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the District Forum, Bolangir in C. D. Case No.35 of 1994. The case was initiated on the application of one Sri Sidhartha Misra, the present respondent who wrote to the Forum that on 5:8.92 a parcel worth Rs.5,000/- was sent to one Dr. Aruna Padhi residing in California (U. S. A.) He referred to the postal receipt No.5140 dated 5.8.92 and alleged that the parcel has not reached Dr. Padhi. His allegation is that although by the date of filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed, no action was taken by the postal authorities despite repeated demands. He claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000 / along with the value of the parcel said to have been sent to Dr. Pedhi. The opposite party, namely the Superintendent of Post Offices being the present appellant has filed show cause stating that parcel was no doubt registered under the aforesaid postal receipt, but since the complaint was made one year after the despatch of the parcel, the necessary papers at different places have been destroyed and therefore no effective enquiry can be made and ascertained as to whether or not the parcel has been delivered at the destination. It was also stated that one Sri Anirudha Bagarty, made a complaint about the said parcel saying that it was a Money Order for Rs.515/-the payee being Dr. Arun Padhi of California. A xerox copy of the complainant made by Sri Anirudha Bagarty has been annexed to the show cause, Annexure I.

(2.) The District Forum, in consideration of the case placed before it, has directed the Postal authorities to make effective enquiry about the missing parcel to be completed within four months. It has also directed that the parcel if found to be missing and not delivered to the addressee, the value of which is Rs.5,000/- and is not disputed, should be paid to the opposite party as compensation. Against the aforesaid order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) At the hearing we required to know as to who are the senders of the parcel, because from the application filed by the present respondent we did not find any assertion to the effect that he was the sender. He has stated about sending of the parcel in question in a passive voice without mentioning himself as the sender which, in our opinion, must be purposeful is as much as earlier complaint made by Sri Anirudha Bagarty in respect of the said parcel (through wrongly described as Money order) also do not mention the name of the sender. We required the complainant respondent to satisfy us about the real sender to the parcel who is to be compensated and not anybody else who has possessed the postal receipt by some process or other. It is no doubt correct that if the parcel has been sent by a consumer and it did not reach the destination, the loss sustained by the sender must have to be compensated, but before we award any compensation to the aggrieved party it must be ascertained as to who is the consumer. Even if we find that the present appellant is guilty of deficiency in service, the compensation must reach the consumer and not any body else who comes up with the claim for compensation. In the aforesaid circumstances, not being satisfied that the complainant is the real consumer, we are unable to give any direction to the opposite parties as a step towards consumer redressal. For the aforesaid reason we are unable to subscribe to the view expressed by District Forum. The appeal is therefore, is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.