STATE Vs. MANAGER SPEED POST BUSINESS OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This enquiry was initiated on a complaint by Ms. Seema Ajwani, Asstt. Manager (PA and MD) of Informatics Computer Systems, New Delhi against the Manager, Speed Post Business Office, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Department of Post, New Delhi (the respondent for brief ). The said complaint was treated as information and the matter was investigater was investigated into by the Director (Research) and Preliminary Investigation Report was submitted to the Commission recommending for institution of enquiry. After going through the complaint and the PIR the Notice of Enquiry under Sections 36a, 36b (d) and 36d for indulging into unfair trade practices was issued against the respondent on 24.9.1996 returnable on 5.11.1996, which reads as under : "whereas the respondent, namely, Speed Post Business Office undertakes to deliver speed post letters and envelopes to the addressees and is rendering 'postal services'. And Whereas information has been furnished by M/s. Informatics Computer Systems that two letters dated 8.10.1994 - one addressed to Shri G. K. Bakshi, Joint Director (Planning), Department of Education, Government of Sikkim and another addressed to Shri Gautam Rai Chowdhary, Hakimpur, Siliguri, were delivered to the addressees on 22.10.1994 and 24.10.1994 respectively. And whereas there is information with the Commission that as per Postal Guide, Inland Services, a publication of Director General Posts', India 1992 under the head 'guaranteed Delivery', the following is indicated : 'articles booked before a specified time, known as CUT-OFF TIME, which may be different for different destinations, and notified in the booking office, are delivered within the specified delivery time, it is normally 24 to 72 hours within India depending on the destination. ' the trade practice of delivering speed post letters envelopes after 14-15 days i. e. much after the time envisaged in the postal guide, amounts to an Unfair Trade Practice of making false representation concerning the standard, quality, uses and benefits, the need for and usefulness of its postal services attracting the provisions of Clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) of Sec.36a (1) of the MRTP Act, 1969. "

(2.) The matter came up for hearing on 5.11.1996. One Mr. S. M. Arif, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and requested for time for filing the reply, which was not objected to by the DG and the case was fixed for framing of issues on 13.2.1997. On 13.2.1997 nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and the case was fixed for 30th July, 1997 with direction that if no reply is received by that date, the proceedings will be ex parte against the respondent. On 30th July, 1997 the respondent did not file the reply to the NOE and the proceedings were set ex parte against the respondent. The following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has indulged or is indulging in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE (2) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or interest of the consumer or consumers generally The case was listed for DG's evidence on 22.12.1997.

(3.) On 22.12.1997 Mr. R. N. Tatia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against the respondent vide order dated 30.7.1997 and to give him an opportunity to file the reply to the NOE. The prayer of the respondent was allowed in the interest of justice and the case was listed for DG's evidence on 20th April, 1998. In compliance of the said order DG filed the affidavit in evidence of his witness and witness was present for cross-examination. Mr. Tatia, Counsel for the respondent did not cross- examine the witness as he admitted that there is no dispute about the facts. Thereafter the respondent was given the liberty to file its evidence on affidavit and the case was fixed for final hearing on 17.8.1998. On that date the respondent could not file its evidence and the case adjourned to 26th October, 1998. On 26.10.1998 the respondent filed his counter- affidavit and the arguments were concluded on 16th July, 1999 and order was reserved.