West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2014/18

REBIKA YONZON - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. DARJEELING HEAD POST OFFICE, - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

 

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

 

The complainant’s case in brief is that she is employed as health assistant at Sukna Block Primary Health Centre, and on 02.07.2013 she learnt that a promotional training would be organized at Nursing Promotees Training School at Sripally, Dist.- Burdwan.  On 02.07.2013 itself the complainant filled in the required form, and sent the same to the Principal of Nursing Promotees Training School at Sripally, Dist.- Burdwan, through speed post.  On that occasion the OP No.2 had informed the complainant that her application form would reach its destination within 72 hours of booking.  The last date for receipt of application at the training school was 09.07.2013, but the complainant obtained information from the internet that her application

 

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

 

 

reached Burdwan Head Post Office on 10.07.2013, and the addressee refused to accept it, since the last date was already over.  The complainant submits that due to latches of the OPs, she was deprived from attending the said promotional training, and as a consequence her promotion was frustrated.  On such ground, the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs for the mental agony she sustained, and she prays for some other reliefs as well.

OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  It is stated by the OPs that OP No.2 never gave the complainant any conformation/assurance that the said item would be reached to it’s destination within 05.07.2013 and the item was attempted to be delivered to the addressee by the Postal Authority on 09.07.2013.  OPs further stated that the Postal bag was received by Sripally S.O. on 09.07.2013 and on the even date the bag was opened so also the item was attempted to deliver to the addressee and the addressee refused to receive the said item from the Postal peon on 09.07.2013.  Further case of the OPs is that the Postal bag containing the item was received by Burdwan S.H. on 08.07.2013 and the addressee refused to accept the item from postal peon on 09.07.2013 and 10.07.2013 and as such that the said item was again bagged for Burdwan S.H.  OPs stated that there was/s no willful latches or any sort of negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and as such the OPs prayed that the case should be liable to be dismissed.  

     

Complainant has filed the following documents:-

 

1.       Postal Receipt of Speed Post article. 

2.       Original Speed Post article dated 02/07/2013.

3.       Track result of Speed Post article (EW 870308484IN).

 

          OPs Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed the following document :-

 

1.       Copy of judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in Revision petition No.1006 of 2001 and Revision petition No.1035 of 2002. 

 

          Complainant has also filed evidence-in-chief and written notes of argument.

          OPs have filed written notes of argument. 

 

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

 

 

 

Points for decision

 

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

 

Decision with reason

 

The complainant and the OPs have filed written notes of argument. 

The argument is that the complainant posted the envelope with the application form as stated in the body of the complaint for sending the same to the addressee.  But the said application form kept in the envelope and Speed Post was not delivered to the addressee by 09.07.2013.  Accordingly, the application form failed to reach its destination for which the complainant failed to appear and attend the said training.  It is the OP Post Office who has deprived the complainant from enjoying her right to appear and contest the proposed examination or proposed training course.  On the other hand the OPs argued in their written notes of argument that the track result submitted by the complainant it is evident that said booked item was reached at Burdwan Head Post Office on 08.07.2013 at Sripally S.O. and Sripally S.O. received the item on 09.07.2013.  But the addressee refused to take the item. 

Accordingly, from the complaint and the written version and argument of both sides, it is surfaced that the complainant booked the article in the said post office.  It is admitted position proved by the annexure-I (Postal receipt) of Speed Post.  The OPs also admit the track result.  The OPs admit that the said booked item was received on 09.07.2013, but on 09.07.2013 the addressee refused the same.  From the annexure-II i.e., the envelope containing application for promotional training course, it appears that there is only endorsement ‘refused’ and date is ‘09.07.2013’.

So, there is no dispute between the parties that the complainant did not send the letter by Speed Post and it is not disputed that the OPs did not get the same at all, but plea taken by the OPs that “on 09.07.2013 the addressee refused to take this letter”.  The envelope shows no time when the word ‘refused’ has been written with date 09.07.2013.  The OPs in fact admitted the allegation of complainant in the argument last part of Para-1.  Facts remains that there is no signature of the addressee on the envelope to show that the addressee refused the envelope.  The postal peon did not put his name clearly on the endorsement of ‘refused’.  In the written argument at last part of para-I

 

Contd......P/4

-:4:-

 

 

the OPs only stated ‘postal peon’ i.e., no name has been shown not in the envelope not in the argument.  But OPs take the plea that addressee ‘refused’ the same.  Accordingly, burden of proof is upon the postal peon and the OPs to establish that the envelope was given to the addressee, Principal Nursing Officer, Jagatberh Promotees Training School, and the said addressee refused the same with endorsement.  Also there is no endorsement stating the fact of refusal with time therein by the postal peon that why the item has been refused by the complainant and when the item was placed before the addressee.  The postal peon did not file any evidence contradicting the allegation of the complainant.  That postal peon did not come before this Forum with his own version.  The Track Result filed by the complainant shows on 09.07.2013 at 09:13:57 Sripally S.O. received the item and on the same date at 04:29 delivery ‘attempted’, ‘refused’.  There is no averment of the OPs why such time of seven hours was taken by the Sripally S.O.  It is not stated by the OPs when the item was handed over to the postal peon and the postal peon met the addressee.    

After examining the envelope we are not in a position or the OPs did not show the state of affairs regarding their short word endorsement ‘refused’. 

So, the allegation that the complainant’s letter did not send to the addressee within time and the addressee did not get the same.  As a result, the complainant did not get opportunity to appear in the examination losing her chance for better condition in service.  There is nothing in the envelope to show that the postal peon requested the addressee within time to take this envelope or to make his/her endorsement refusing the same.

After scrutiny, it appears that the postal authority and postal peon did not take due care and attention to deliver the envelope to the addressee in time.  This act and fact and argument of OPs support the contention of the complainant that the OPs failed to discharge their duties in delivering the envelope to the addressee in time. 

Therefore, material on record inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum that OPs are neglectful and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Due to negligent act of the OPs, the complainant failed to appear in the examination for which she lost a chance of betterment in her service.  As such the complainant is deprived from getting future better benefit in designation and in salary also.  This has done due to want of due care and attention of the OPs towards the service of the general people.  Accordingly, the complainant is

 

Contd......P/5

-:5:-

 

 

entitled to get punitive damages along with compensation for mental agony and pain and litigation cost.    

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.18/S/2014 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part against the OPs.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.40/- for Speed Post charge from the OPs.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment from the OPs.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- for punitive damages from the OPs. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost from the OPs. 

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.40/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for Speed Post charge within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for punitive damages within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

In case of default of payment, the complainant is further entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,50,040/- from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

 -Member-                           -Member-                        -President-