HEM RAJ Vs. SR SUPERINTENDENT POSTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case represents a sad spectacle where the concerned officers of the Post and Telegraphs Department of the Union Government of India have exhibited a colossal despotic attitude for not redressing a genuine grievance of the appellant herein who himself had served during his prime youth in the Central Government and long ago retired as J. E. Electric Maintenance. The relevant facts of the case are that on 29.7.2003 he booked a Speed Post Parcel with respondent No.2 herein which was to be delivered to C. E. N. C. c/o 56 A. P. O. The weight of the speed post parcel was 100 gms and the permissible fee chargeable was Rupees thirty but respondent No.2 had charged Rupees fifty. On previous two occasions the appellant had also booked speed post parcels (the particulars whereof are given in the impugned order) and they too were also addressed to the same addressee i. e. C. E. N. C. c/o 56 APO, but respondent No.2 had charged the permissible fee. The case of the appellant is that when he detected the mischief, he immediately approached respondent No.2 for the refund of Rupees twenty, which was the excess amount charged but in lieu thereof the latter directed him to approach the Post Office of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The appellant went there but got the direction to approach respondent No.1. After many more visits finally on 5.7.2004, respondent No.1 ordered an inquiry which remained pending without any results. The appellant waited for more than one year and finally on 25.7.2005 filed Complaint No.560/2005 in the Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum ). The Forum issued notice to the respondents for appearance. This act of the Forum made the respondents to wake up from the deep slumber and Senior Postmaster Jammu Headquarter vide his registered letter No. SPC/refund/2005/03 Jammu dated 30.8.2005, asked the appellant to accept the enclosed cheque No.183095 dated 30.8.1995 for Rupees twenty on account of "refund of excess amount charged while booking a speed post article on 29.7.2003". The said letter was received by the appellant on 31.8.1995 and he did not accept the cheque but placed the same on the record of the complaint. The claim was contested before the Forum. The Forum arrived at the conclusion that over-charging was a bona fide mistake committed by the employee of the Central Government which caused no wrongful loss or wrongful gain to either of the parties of the case. That the concerned clerk who had charged the excess amount could not suo motu refund the amount of Rupees twenty because prior permission was required to be obtained from the Competent Authority which normally is a time consuming process. The delay of more than one year in not settling the claim of the complainant by respondents was shielded by the Forum by holding that "respondent No. l: Senior Superintendent of Post at Amphalla had ordered an inquiry in the matter on 5.7.2004; the complainant without waiting for a reasonable time has approached this Forum within twenty days thereafter". The Forum has further gone to the extent of holding that "this was a matter of trivial nature and there was no merit in the complaint itself". After dismissing the complaint, the appellant was directed to collect the cheque in question against proper receipt if he chose so.

(2.) Before the Forum, the appellant had personally contested the case. In the Commission too he has not sought any legal help from a lawyer. In the memo of appeal, he has challenged the order of the Forum on the grounds that he waited for about two years to know about the result of the inquiry and when nothing was heard, he approached the Divisional Forum for the refund of Rs.20. That he has suffered great mental agony as it was not a simple question of refund of the amount but inhuman and recalcitrant treatment of the concerned officials who had made him a shuttle cock to be tossed from pillar to post to seek justice. Had the respondents been sincere in assuaging his hurt feelings, the grievance would have been settled amicably. To add insult to the injury, the Forum has also failed to appreciate the real point as to whether the appellant was made to suffer mentally in respect of refund of petty amount of Rs.20 charged in excess. The Forum on the basis of no evidence has wrongly held that the concerned clerk had committed a bona fide error in making the calculations of the charges. This fact was not even pleaded on affidavit by the concerned clerk.

(3.) Heard the arguments.