DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 9 of 2013
Topi Krushna Bhoi, S/o. Basudev Bhoi, aged about 24 years, R/o. Thanapatipada, Sonepur town, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Principal, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Dunguripali Centre, P.O./P.S. Dunguripali, District – Subarnapur.
2. The Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Centre, District Agriculture Office Road, Koraput, P.O./P.S./District – Koraput
3. The Proprietor, Fly King Courier Service, Near Sonepur Police Station (Inside RCMS Building, Sonepur), P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R. Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2 …………. Sri A.Mishra
Advocate for the O.P. No.3 …………. Sri N.K.Tripathy
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.04.03.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
The case of the complainant is that O.P. No.2 is the Regional Director of IGNOU herein after called IGNOU. The O.P. No.2 opened a Branch at Dunguripali. The O.P. No.1 is the Principal of said Branch.
The complainant is a student of IGNOU of Dunguripali Centre and he was admitted in B.A. in the year January 2012 on payment of prescribed fees. The complainant prepared demand draft of Rs.1600/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred) only vide Draft No.265016 dt.1.12.2012 in favour of IGNOU payable at Koraput Branch. Complainant also prepared another draft amounting to Rs.200/-. The complainant sent both the drafts alongwith other documents through Fly King Courier service of Sonepur Branch, O.P. No.3. According to the O.P. No.3 he has send the said letter for delivery to O.P. No.2 vide No.48772046 through prop of Koraput Fly King Courier Service who was O.P. No.4 in this case.
Inspite of sending the drafts in favour of O.P. No.2, the complainant did not received any information from the O.P. No.1 and 2 regarding his admission in B.A. 2nd year. On approach to the O.P. No.1 and 2, the complainant came to know that the said O.Ps. have not received any such letter.
-: 2 :-
On enquiry from the O.P. No.3 i.e. Fly King Courier Service of Sonepur Branch, the complainant was supplied a Xerox copy of the document of O.P. No.4. In the said document it has been shown that the O.P. No.2 i.e. IGNOU Koraput has received eleven letters on 22.1.2013 which includes the letter of complainant vide Courier No.48772046.
But when the complainant informed this fact to the O.P. No.1 he refused to have received such letter. The Xerox copy of the document supplied by the O.P. No.3 shows that the O.P. No.2 has received the envelope containing drafts. The seal and signature of O.P. No.1 is there on this document.
The complainant alleged that he has send the drafts through Fly King Courier Service with correct address of O.P. No.1, but for no fault on his part, he could not get admission in to B.A. 2nd year.
It is the averment of the complainant that the O.Ps. have misappropriated his money and due to their fault the complainant suffered lot.
So the complainant has prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to refund Rs.1800/- with 12% interest. He has also prayed Rs.90,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
The O.P. No.1 and 2 have jointly filed their version. The fact that O.P. No.2 is the Regional Director at IGNOU Koraput is admitted. The fact that they have opened study centre at Koraput is also admitted. The fact that the complainant was student of B.A. 1st year class is also admitted.
This O.Ps. allege that the Fly King Courier have not been able to give any evidence regarding the receipt of letter containing the draft by Regional Centre Koraput. They further allege that the D.D. has not been encashed and credited in to the account of Regional Centre bearing account No.11190089137.
The O.Ps. further allege that the D.D. was drawn on 01.10.2012 and claimed to have been sent to Koraput on 22.1.2013 after a gap of 3 months. So the D.D. had already become automatically invalid. They further allege that they have checked the status of Fly King Courier C. No.478772046 on the website of Fly King Couriers. The R.C. has received the reply that letter bearing the “C” note is not a valid “C” note. Hence they allege that the authenticity of the letter being delivered to the R.C. is unfounded.
They further allege that they have not received any phone call or complaint from the complainant during the year for his not being admitted into B.A. 2nd year. Further they alleged that if this letter had reached the regional centre by 22.1.2013 also the complainant would not have been allowed to take admission as the last date for re-registration with a fine of Rs.1000/- i.e. 20th of December each year.
The O.Ps. allege that the complainant might have made some arrangements with Fly King Courier and produced fictitious documents before the court. The O.Ps. avers that for re-registration a student is required to send the appropriate form alongwith the draft to the regional director. According
-: 3 :-
to these O.Ps. the student being irresponsible did not bother to send the document in time. The O.Ps. avers that by the date the complainant has claimed for the letter to have been delivered at the regional centre (i.e. 22.01.2013 ) all the last date for re-registration have been over.
Hence they have prayed that the complaint case be dismissed with exemplary cost.
The O.P. No.3 has filed version. This O.P. avers that it is not known to him as to what documents were sent to O.P. No.2 in closed envelope. This O.P. admitted to have received this letter vide No.48772046. He alleges that the said letter has been delivered in time to the addressee through the proprietor Fly King Courier Service, Amla Kuter Road Koraput, who was O.P. No.4in this case.
This O.P. alleges that the O.P. No.2 has duly received the letter sent through the O.P. No.4 and has acknowledged the same by giving his signature and seal. This O.P. further avers that the O.P. No.1 and 2 have deliberately suppressed the documents send by the complainant through the O.P. No.3. This O.P. also avers that since the documents in question have been delivered to the O.P. No.1 and 2, there is no question of misappropriation of draft value. So he prays that the complaint case be dismissed.
At the outset it must be mentioned that the name of O.P. No.4 has been deleted from this case at the instance of the complainant on 10.7.2015. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant, O.P. No.1, 2 and 3. We have also perused the materials on record. From the pleadings of the parties, submissions of learned counsels during hearing the sole point that requires determination in this case is :- Has there been deficiency of service by the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 ?
The complainant alleged that he has sent the envelope containing the draft through the Fly King Courier Service of Sonepur Branch O.P. No.3, O.P. No.3 admits this fact in his written version. According to O.P. No.3 he has sent this letter for delivery to O.P. No.2 vide No.48772046 through the Prop. Of Koraput Fly King Courier Service, who was O.P. No.4 in this case. The O.P. No.2 has denied to have received the same. The complainant has filed the Xerox copy of document belonging to Fly King Courier Service Koraput date 27.1.2013. From this document it is ascertained that the O.P. No.2 has received the envelope on 22.1.2013. The signature and seal of O.P. No.2 is there, which is disputed by the O.P. since the receipt of the letter is denied by the O.P. No.2, the proprietor Fly King Courier service Koraput was the best person to explain regarding the delivery of the envelope to O.P. No.2. Originally he was O.P. No.4 in this case. But as he has closed the shop and his where about was not known, the complainant filed petition to delete his name from the name of O.Ps. in this case. Accordingly his name was deleted under order dt.10.7.2015.
Further more even if it is believed that the envelope was delivered to O.P. No.2, it is not going to help the case of the complainant for the following reasons. We have perused the documents filed by O.P. No.1 and 2. We have perused the document dated August 2013 of IGNOU. From this document it is
-: 4 :-
ascertained that the last date of registration for the relevant class was upto 20th December with late fine of Rs.1000/-. In the instant case the envelops containing the draft is alleged to have been handed over to O.P. No.2 on 22.1.2013 after the last date of registration. Further more, the O.P. No.1 and 2 has filed the letter written by IGNOU to the Chief Manager S.B.I. Koraput dt.3.12.2013. In the said letter the Chief Manager S.B.I. Koraput has observed on 3.12.2013 that DD No.265016 dt.1.10.2012 for Rs.1600/- favouring IGNOU issued by Sonepur Branch still remains unpaid as on that date. So there has not been misappropriation of the draft value by any of the O.Ps.
In the instant case the receipt of the envelope containing the draft has been categorically denied by the O.P. No.2. This envelope has been alleged to have been delivered by the proprietor Fly King Courier Service Koraput who was O.P. No.4 in this case and as such he was the best person to explain the Forum regarding the delivery of the envelope. If actually he has not delivered the envelope, liability will be fixed on him. So we are of the considered opinion that in his absence it will not be safe to fix liability on any of the other O.Ps.
In the aforesaid premises we have no other option than to dismiss the complaint.
In the result this complaint case is dismissed. No Cost.
Dated the 4th day of March 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.04.03.2016 Dt.04.03.2016
