Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 27 (UTT)

Sub Postmaster v. Ram Bhajan

2004-04-08

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRAKUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 30.08.1994 passed by the District Forum, Pauri, Garhwal whereby the appellant was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) to the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint had to appear in some examination. Last date for submission of application was 30.04.1994. The complainant sent the application on 25.04 .1994 by registered post. It was returued to him of 09.05.1994 with the endorsement of refusal. It is alleged that the complaint was made to the postal department but when nothing was done, the complaint was filed. 3. The postal department filed the written .statement and alleged that on 25.04.1994, the registered letter was sent but when it was refused by the addressee, it was returned to the complainant. There is no deficiency' in the service of the postal department. 4. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties found that the appellant was deficient in its service, therefore allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. . 5. Notice was issued to the complainant. He did not appear. Hence we proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The last date for submission of form was 30.04.1994. There appeal's nothing for which the complainant sent the application on 25.01.1994 when only 5 days were in hand. Ordinarily when there is rush of work more than 7 days are taken in the delivery of registered letters. The Selection 'Board was not bound to receive the registered letter after 30.04.1994. If it was returned the postal department has got option but to return it to the complainant. The delay, if any was on the part of the complainant himself. The advertisements are published in the newspapers giving full one or two months time for submission of application and if a party sends application knowing fully well that it may not reach within time, it should suffer the consequences. 7. On facts and merits of the case, we find that the complaint was not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service of the postal department and• the complaint should have been dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 39.08.1994 passed by the Learned forum is hereby quashed. The complaint is also dismissed. 7. On facts and merits of the case, we find that the complaint was not maintainable. There was no deficiency in service of the postal department and• the complaint should have been dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 39.08.1994 passed by the Learned forum is hereby quashed. The complaint is also dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.