Paramjit Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member:

1. M/s. Navjeevan Pharmacy has filed this complaint through its proprietor Sh. Paramjit Kumar under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act). Navjeevan Pharmacy Works consists of factory of Ayurvedic Medicines at plot No. 366, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Haryana and International Ayurvedic Business of treating the overseas patients through its Ayurvedic Theraphy. The complainant has been operating International Ayurvedic business for more than 25 years and has gained popularity in many foreign countries where it has established organizations to treat overseas patients through competent agents and doctors by applying Ayurvedic treatment to the sufferers of chronic diseases.

2. In Para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has averred that he has built up his entire foreign business through Post Box No. 40 which he has been operating for more than 25 years. Lacs of brochures of Navjeevan Pharmaceutical Works have been sent to the foreign countries during the past 25 years having the address of Post Box No. 40, Chandigarh, as a result of this thousands of agents and patients correspond on this address from all over the world. This Post Box has been renewed every year with the payment of renewal fee which is deposited at the G.P.O., Sector 17, Chandigarh annually before 31st March. The O.P. No. 2, Senior Post Master, G.P.O., Sector 17, Chandigarh sent an advance intimation for the renewal of the Post Box fee for the year 1997-98. It has been averred in the Para 3 of the complaint that the renewal fee has been deposited by the complainant regularly every year within the specified time and receipts of payment of the last five years are annexed as Annexures C-1/A to C-1/E. On receiving the intimation from the O.P. No. 2, Senior Post Master, G.P.O., Sector 17, Chandigarh, a sum of Rs. 150/- was deposited in cash at counter No. 8 in G.P.O. as renewal fee in advance for Post Box No. 40 for the year 1997-98. The said amount was deposited on 19th March i.e. 12 days before the expiry date. A computerized receipt of Rs. 150/- bearing No. 117396 has been annexed as Annexure C-2.

3. After several weeks of deposit of the fee for year 1997-98, the complainant received a memo No. G-9/Post Office/Ch/0/96-97 dated 16.4.1996 regarding cancellation Post Box No. 40 for the non payment of renewal/annual charges, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-3. It has been averred in Para 6 of the complaint that in order to undo this wrongful action of the O.Ps., the complainant addressed a letter of protest to the Post Master, G.P.O., Sector 17, Chandigarh (O.P. No. 3) dated 2.6.1997. Copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure C-4. Despite the receipt of letter No. SP-1861/1997 dated 2.6.1997, Annexure C-4, by the concerned Post Master of the Post Office, complainants Post Box No. 40 was allotted to one Sh. Karan J. Kumar, S.C.F. 23, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh vide Office Memo No. G-9/Post Box/40 dated 21.7.1997 fraudulently and wilfully. The complainant has averred that besides the allotment of the Post Box to some other party, even the old lock of Post Box was replaced with a new one without assigning any reasons and giving any intimation to the complainant. The keys of the new lock were handed over to the new allottee, Sh. Karan J. Kumar despite the fact that keys of old lock was still in possession of the complainant and its renewal fee was already paid by the complainant. It has been averred in Para 10 of the complaint that the cancellation of the Post Box No. 40 was illegal intentional and wilful. The allotment of Post Box No. 40 to Sh. Karan J. Kumar tentamounts to extraordinary favour by going out of the way and by discarding all postal rules and regulations and further by replacing the old lock of the Post Box in question with a new one without assigning any reason is nothing but a planned conspiracy and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 3. The complainant also sent a detailed and well reasoned letter to various higher authorities i.e. Director General, Post and Telegraphs Dak and Tar Bharwan, New Delhi and Post Master General, Chandigarh through registered cover dated 31.1.1997, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-5. He also filed a civil suit challenging the said order of cancellation in which the Honble Court vide its order dated 15.10.1997 appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the Post Box No. 40, but O.P. No. 3 disobeyed and obstructed the execution of said order and accordingly Local Commissioner submitted his report dated 18.10.1997 before the Honble Court, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-6, and is reproduced as under :

“In the Court of Sh. Jasbir Singh S.J.I.C., Chandigarh

Paramjit Kumar v. Karanjit Kumar and Ors.

Report of the Local Inspection

Sir,

Pursuance to the order dated 15.10.1997 passed by this Honble Court I went to inspect the Post Box No. 40, at G.P.O. Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh as mentioned in the order at 1.45 p.m. My report is as under :

I reached at 1.45 p.m. at G.P.O., Sector-17, Chandigarh and before inspection I served the notice on Sh. L.K. Mishra, Sr. Post Master, G.P.O., Sector-17, Chandigarh who after reading the notice and instead of taking it, returned the notice saying that it should be in the receipt counter.

“I gave the notice to Smt. Kiran, clerk of the receipt branch at 2.45 p.m. on 17.10.1997 who signed the notice. She put up the file before Sh. L.K. Mishra. He told us to first inspect the Post Box No. 40 whether that is operatable or not with the key available with the Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff gave me the key No. 3054 to operate the Post Box No. 40. I tried to operate the box, belt was not operatable.”

Then I demanded the file relating to Post Box No. 40, from Mr. L.K. Mishra, to that he again read the order of the Court and uttered at under :

“Court does not know how to Pass Orders”

After this he threw the notice and Court order on the table saying that file will be shown only after close of the work of the day after 4 Oclock. I requested him that I cannot wait upto 4 p.m. and he should comply with the Court order by deputing a concerned clerk to show the file to me.

To that he again said that file will not be shown before 4 p.m. and you can do whatever you like.

I along with the Counsel for the plaintiff returned without examining the Commission as file was not shown by Sh. L.K. Mishra, Sr. Post Master, G.P.O., Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Copy of the notice and order of the Court is attached.

“Department of Post (India)

Office of the Sr. Postmaster

Chandigarh - 160017.

Memo No. : G-9/Post Box/97-98 dtd. at Ch. The 10.12.1997.

Renewal charges for Post Box No. 40 of Sec - 17, Chandigarh G.P.O. for the year 1997-98 were credited by M/s. Navjiwan Pharmacy, 108/8A, Chandigarh at the multi-purpose machine counter at Chandigarh GPO on 29.3.1997 under head unclassified receipts who is the allottee of this Post Box long back. The credit of renewal fee of the said Post Box could not be traced so the above said Post Box was cancelled and allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar, SCF 23/Sec-9C, Chandigarh - 160017 vide this Office Memo No. G-9/Post Box/40 dtd. 27.7.1997. Post Box 40 erroneously allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar is hereby cancelled and allotted to M/s. Navjiwan Pharmacy, 108/8-A, Chandigarh, the old renter with immediate effect to rectify the error.

New Post Box No. to Sh. Karanjit Kumar is being allotted separately.

Sd/-

Sr. Postmaster,

Chandigarh-160017

..........................”

4. The complainant in Para 18 of the complaint prayed for the relief which is reproduced as under :

“(A) Pecuniary Losses : Rs. 16,00,000/-

caused by injuries incurred for medical treatment, nursing, special medical appliances, extra domestic help, loss of earnings, legal remedy by filing suits, writs, notices, reputation in business, making lengthy correspondence with the postal departments and other higher authorities, typing postage, xeroxing, legal consultations, travelling etc.

(B) Non Pecuniary Losses Rs. 3,00,000/-

caused due to pain suffering and shock, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of business, inconvenience and discomfort etc.

Total Rs. 19,00,000/-”

5. In reply, the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 raised preliminary objections. Firstly the complainant had earlier filed civil suit in the Court of Shri Jasbir Singh, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chandigarh along with application for staying the operation of the cancellation order. The suit was defended by the opposite parties and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was rejected by the Honble Court. After the disposal of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the complainant had withdrawn his suit. Thus, the present complaint is on the same cause of action, as such, is not maintainable. Copy of the suit filed along with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has been annexed as Annexures R-1 and R/1/A. In the second preliminary objection, it has been averred that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint before this Commission as he himself has not complied with the provisions contained in Clause 50(8) of Post Office Guide Post-I.

6. On merits, it has been averred in Para 1 of the reply that Post Box No. 40 was allotted in the name of Navjeewan Pharmaceutical Works. However, it is submitted that his brother Sh. Karanjit Kumar in his reply R/2 has claimed that their father Dr. Amar Nath was the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Navjeewan Pharmaceutical Works and after his death the complainant had grabbed the proprietorship firm through unlawful and forcible means and his brother Sh. Karanjit Kumar is also the co-owner of the firm. In any case, it has further been averred that the complainant has been getting dak through the said Post Box and the dak of the complainant had never been disturbed and delivered in time. In para 3 of the reply, it has been averred that the complainant did not make an application for renewal rather as a goodwill, the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 issued him a reminder letter dated 27.2.1997, copy of the same has been attached as Annexure R-4, for depositing a sum of Rs. 150/- as rent for the year 1997-98 on or before 31.3.1997 at counter No. 8 of the G.P.O. and intimate the information on the prescribed ‘Information Slip attached with the letter. The complainant neither made the payment on the given counter nor intimated about the deposit of the prescribed fee as desired in a letter annexed as Annexure R-4. Consequently, the Post Box No. 40 was cancelled in the name of the complainant firm vide order dated 16.4.1997, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure R-5. It has further been averred that the complainant remained silent even after the cancellation of the Post Box and in the meantime one Shri Karanjit Kumar, who incidentally happened to be his brother applied for the Post Box and this Post Box No. 40 having been vacant due to cancellation, was allotted to him vide order dated 21.7.1997, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure R-6. The complainant, it has further been averred that neither approached the O.P. Department nor shown any receipt of his having deposited the amount for renewal. Therefore, the Post Box No. 40 was cancelled in the name of the complainant on 16.4.1997 and the same was allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar and the complainant filed the civil suit on 13.10.1997 in the Civil Court but till then he did not make any representation nor approached the Department to raise his grouse if any against the cancellation of the Post Box and Sh. Karanjit Kumar, the new allottee has been using the said Post Box w.e.f. 21.7.1997. However, the dak of the complainant as received was delivered through the postman in time. In para 4 of reply, it has been averred that the complainant deposited the renewal fee of Rs. 150/- in some other counter, whereas he was supposed to deposit this fee at the counter No. 8 as desired by the O.P. No. 3 vide letter No. G-9/Post Box/96-97 dated 27.2.1997. The complainant did not submit the information of having deposited the fee as was required to be sent on the Intimation Slip attached with the letter dated 27.2.1997. In fact, the complainant had deposited the fee at computer counter which is meant for multipurpose deposits under the head unclassified receipts. The renewal fee is also credited under the head unclassified receipts but with the installation of multipurpose counter machine, it is not possible to summarise the collection from all the different counters. That is why it has been specifically mentioned that the fee should be deposited in counter No. 8 and intimate the fact to the Sr. Post Master on the slip attached but the complainant failed to do so resulting in the cancellation of the Post Box No. 40. In para 10 of the reply it has been averred that O.Ps. were having no knowledge at the time of allotment of the Post Box to Sh. Karanjit Kumar that he is incidentally the brother of the complainant and they are enmical and having various family disputes. It is only in routine that the Post Box No. 40 was allotted to Sh. Karanjit Kumar on 21.7.1997. Thus it denied that there was any conspiracy hatched to cancel the Post Box and allotment of the same to Shri Karanjit Kumar, the brother of the complainant. It has been further contended by the O.Ps. that the case of conspiracy, which requires to be established by a detailed evidence, as such, cannot be adjudicated by this Commission under the C.P. Act. it is further evident from page 33 of the complaint that the complainant has filed a case before the Honble High Court where the orders were passed giving liberty to the complainant to file the criminal complaint, thus in view of the present position, the complaint as such is not maintainable. In para 11 of the reply, it has been averred that Ms. Seema Anand was appointed as the Local Commissioner to inspect the record, who visited the G.P.O. without any prior information or notice and at the time when there was public rush in the Post Office. She was requested to wait for sometimes but she left the Post Office and submitted the report which is factually incorrect. Even the O.P. No. 3 personally went to request her to inspect the records and wrote a letter dated 17.10.1997 but she did not visit again and submitted the wholly unjustified and unwarranted report. The complainant was further refused the stay and thereafter he intended not to pursue the matter and withdraw his suit from the Civil Court.

7. In para 12 of the reply, it has been averred that the Post Box No. 40 was restored to the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.1997 which has been annexed as Annexure R-8 as per order of the higher authorities. In fact, the complainant had approached higher authorities with earnest request to restore the Post Box to him inspite of his omissions and the higher authorities having been considerate and with a view to sort out the entire problems, decided to restore the Post Box to the complainant otherwise the cancellation of the Post Box was legally done and as per the departmental procedure and rules. Sh. Karanjit Kumar, who was allotted the Post Box No. 40 was given another Post Box 89 vide order dated 30.12.1998 (Annexure R-9). As per the Clause 50(6) no renter is entitled to demand the Post Box of particular number or a Post Box in a particular row or position. Thus the facilities of Post Box was never denied to the complainant but it is due to his own defaults which led the cancellation of the said Post Box No. 40 in his name. The O.Ps. have emphatically denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint case.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate and learned Counsel for the O.Ps., Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate and perused the record of the complaint case along with the evidence and other relevant documents adduced by both the parties. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties.

9. The learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Ranjan Lohan has admitted that the renewal fee of Rs. 150/- in connection with the Post Box No. 40 was deposited at the miscellaneous counter after having received the notice from the O.P. No. 3 vide its letter No. G-9/Post Box/96-97 dated 27.2.1997. According to this letter the renewal fee was supposed to be deposited in counter No. 8 but the complainant deposited the fee in the miscellaneous counter. He further contended that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and it was upto them to tally depositing of the renewal fee. The learned Counsel for the complainant has also admitted that subsequently the Post Box No. 40 was re-allotted to the complainant after undergoing a lot of mental harassment and inconvenience. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the O.Ps. Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate has brought to our notice that the O.Ps. are not at all at fault and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. because they had sent a letter to the complainant to deposit the renewal fee in the counter No. 8. The complainant neither deposited the renewal fee in the counter No. 8 nor informed the O.Ps. regarding the deposit of the fee in a different counter whereby the remedial measures could have been taken by the O.Ps. However, after having come to know that the fee has been received by the O.Ps., the Post Box No. 40 has been re-allotted to the complainant after cancelling the same in the name of Sh. Karanjit Kumar, brother of the complainant, who was subsequently allotted Post Box No. 89.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and as a matter of fact, the complainant is at fault in not depositing the fee at the specified counter No. 8, even after reminder from the O.Ps.

11. The complaint is devoid of merit and is resultantly dismissed. However, the costs shall be borne by the parties themselves.