ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner was the complainant. His complaint before the District
Forum was for damages for not having delivered a registered letter to the SDO
Palwal. It was the stand of the Post Office that this registered letter was in fact
delivered within three days. Complainant said he did not receive any
acknowledgement and according to him it was never delivered and he says because
of that he could not take action as was requested by him in the letter District
Forum dismissed the complaint. On appeal filed by the complainant State
Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
In the grounds of appeal before the State Commission the language used by the
complainant was not quite appropriate yet the State Commission examined the
matter in depth and finding no dismissed the appeal including the application
for view. When the matter came up before us in the revision we did not in the
first instance think it proper to look into the matter. Yet considering the old age
of the complainant and the that he suffered for all these years we did issue
notice by our order dated 26.2.2002 which is as under:
“Petitioner was the complainant. He has made different allegations.
His review application was dismissed as it was not maintainable.
Considering the old age and that he has suffered for 20 years, we
issue notice to the first Respondent to examine his grievance
returnable on 24.5.2002. However, in the Memo of parties he has
added names of Mr. Justice J.B. Garg (Retd.) Ex-President, State
Commission, Chandigarh and also Mr. Justice K.K. Srivasta,
President State Commission, Chandigarh. There appears no
justification to add their names. Both these names are deleted from
the array of the parties. Similarly, the name of Mr. Chattar Singh,
Ex-Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration U.T., and
Mr. Tara Singh Chemma, Ex-President, District Forum-I,
Chandigarh, UT are deleted. If necessary and considering the case
of the Petitioner, we may issue notice to the Deputy Commissioner
or otherwise to help the Petitioner. Petitioner is offered legal
assistance but he says that he does not need assistance of any
lawyer.”
2. Furtherance to our notice, Mr. Premnath Sharma, PRO of the
office of Superintendent, Post Office, appeared and reiterated his stand that
registered cover was in fact delivered within three days. We are unable to help
the complainant as we do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the
part of the respondent-Post Office. However, considering the old age of the
complainant we direct our Registrar to send a communication to the SDO, Palwal
making a request to help the petitioner in view of his various submissions made
in his letter which the petitioner said was sent under registered post. This help
which we are rendering to the complainant would not be taken to be conferring
any right on him in any way.
3. We find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.