New Delhi: The National Consumer Commission has ordered the India Post to pay Rs 52,100 to a politician, who was barred from contesting elections due to an undelivered mail.
Arjun Bhagat, an Independent candidate from Jharkhand's Lohardaga constituency during the 2009 Lok Sabha polls, had sent details of his poll expenditure to the District Election Officer.
But since this post was never delivered, Bhagat was debarred from contesting the election from any constituency for a period of three years by the Election Commission of India.
Later, he sought to know the status of his post and also issued a legal notice to the postal department but to no avail.
Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the India Post, Bhagat instituted a consumer complaint before the district consumer forum, which accepted his contentions and awarded him damages of Rs 52,100, along with an interest of six per cent.
The central government challenged this order before the state consumer Commission, which dismissed their appeal.
The state consumer commission regretted that instead of furnishing proof that the post was delivered or it was returned to Bhagat in case of non-delivery, postal department was resorting to technical arguments.
"The fact is that citizens hold in high esteem the post offices run by the central Government and hence, the letter and parcels are preferably sent by the citizens of the country though post offices with the belief that there will not be any obstacle in reaching the articles to its destination but this fact has been utterly belied by the postal Department as the hapless consumer has been debarred form contesting elections in absence of the required information by the election Commission for none of his default," it noted.
The National Consumer Commission upheld this view and criticised the India Post for being "casual" in the matter when the latter took a plea that since the post was not returned, it was to be assumed to have been delivered.
"The attitude of the department creates a reasonable degree of probability that there was wilful default on the part of the employees of the postal department and therefore the onus shifts on the petitioner to discharge the onus to prove its denial particularly when the addressee does not have any access to the functioning of the post office. This leads to the conclusion that there was a wilful default on the part of the petitioner," held the apex consumer forum.
It dismissed the postal department's appeal, directing them to comply with the orders.
Comments
0 comment