DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA
PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
Friday, 8th August 2008
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 61 / 2008
Balkrishn, S/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
aged about 31 years, Probationary officer,
Andhra Bank, Badvel, Kadapa Dist. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) The Professional Courier, District Head Office,
D.No. 10/749, Gangamma Street Temple, Proddatur.
2) The Professional Courier, Rep. by its
Proprietor Ramesh, Beside Krishna complex,
Nellore road, Badvel. ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 7-8-2008 in the presence of Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for complainant and respondens called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant sent one cover containing some documents and certificates and Interview Card to Chandarbhan Jaimini, H.No. 7/408, New Mahavir Colony, Sonepat District, Haryana (State) through R2 on 4-4-2008. The R2 issued receipt on 4-4-2008 but it was mentioned on the receipt as Hydeabad instead of Sonepat address. The parcel cover mentioned the address of Sonepat with bold letters. The complainant questioned reasons for sending cover to Hyderbad address instead of Sonepat address. The R2 expressed that it was mistakenly sent to Hyderabad. But it could be sent to Sonepat. However, it was not reached to Sonepat. At last the cover was returned to the complainant on 23-4-2008. The interview date was 22-4-2008 to the post of Librarian to the wife of the complainant namely Rekha before Defense Research and Development Organization at Bangalore. The complainant’s wife attended Interview without original certificates on 22-4-2008. The complainant’s wife lost appointment for the acts done by the respondents in sending the cover to Hyderabd with wrong address. Therefore, the complaint was filed for deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the respondents for Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages as compensation jointly and severally from the respondents.
3. Notices to R1 and R2 were served Sri P. Sivasankar Raju, Advocae filed vakalath for R1 and Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for R2 filed Vakalath, but failed to file any counters after taking several adjournments from 24-6-2008 to 7-8-2008. Therefore, both the respondents were called absent and set exparte on 7-8-2008.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A3 were marked and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.
6. Point No. 2. The complainant sent one parcel letter on 4-4-2008 through R2 to Chandarbhan Jaimini, Sonepat, (Haryana State) containing certain original documents and certificates and interview letter issued by Defense Research and Development Organization, Personnel Assessment Center (Peace) Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India, New Delhi to be held on 22-4-2008 at Bangalore for the post of STA (A) (0107) In DRDO. The cover was not reached nor delivered at Sonepat But a courier receipt of Ex. A3 issued by the R2 showed the address at Hyderabad. Therefore, the cover was not sent to Sonepet. Hence, it was not delivered to the addressee at Sonepat with all important documents. At last the same cover was returned to the complainant on 23-4-2008 i.e. after the due date of interview at Bangalore. The interview to the wife of the complainant was for the post of Librarian. However, the complainant’s wife attended interview without the original documents on 22-4-2008. The Interview Board generally would not accept the representation of the candidate and would not consider the candidature of the complainant for the post of Librarian in the absence of original certificates.
7. The R2 had not returned the cover till 23-4-2008. In case the cover was lost the complainant would suffer a lot in getting all the certificates in duplicate. The Xerox copy of interview letter was Ex. A1. The returned cover was Ex. A2. Ex. A3 was courier receipt.
8. There is no guarantee in getting the post after attending interview. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the remedy of loss of employment. However, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs, because the negligence was on the part of the respondents Hence, the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. Point No. 3 In the result the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling for Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only). Directing the R1 & R2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 8th August 2008
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 X/c of interview letter, dt. 28-3-2008.
Ex. A2 X/c of returned cover.
Ex. A3 courier receipt.
Exhibits marked for Respodnents : - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa.
2) The Professional Courier, District Head Office,
D.No. 10/749, Gangamma Street Temple, Proddatur.
3) The Professional Courier, Rep. by its Proprietor Ramesh, Beside
Krishna complex, Nellore road, Badvel.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
