KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 APPEAL  No. 573/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 23.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 263/2014 of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K.R                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kasargod  Division, Kasaragod.
2. Postmaster, Kotoor Post Office.

                         (By Sandeep. R. P.  Authorised Representative)

                                          Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Abhijith . K,    Kadappil House, Panoor, Kotoor,  Kasaragod- 671 542.
2. The Railway Recruitment Cell, South Western Railway, Hubli.

        (By Adv. S. Renganathan for 2^nd respondent)

JUDGMENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER

               This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order in C.C. No. 263/2014 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short). 

               2.  As per order dated 24^th June 2016 the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the first opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with costs of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.

         3. The brief details of the complaint are as follows: -

          The complaint pertains to the delay in delivery of a call letter to the complainant consequent to which he could not write an examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board.  The complainant was an applicant for the post in group D of Indian Railways, Hubli Zone (South Western).  The call letter with Roll No 13148627 for the written examination on 02.11.2014 was sent by the agency of the railways on 09-10-2014.  The examination was held on 02-11-2014 whereas he received the call letter on 14-11-2014 ie. after the examination was over.  The date of posting the letter is seen as 09.10.2014 in the envelope and the date of receipt at Kottoor Branch Post Office is on 14.11.2014 on which date itself it was delivered. The letter is sent to Kottoor BO through Muliyar Post Office. As there is no date stamp, it is not known when it was received at Muliyar Post Office. The complainant alleged that he lost an opportunity to get a job in Railways because of the delay on the part of the post office in delivering the call letter in time.  They took 34 days to deliver the letter which is a clear deficiency of service on their part.  Hence, he filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs one lakh.

          4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version stating   that the letter was an ordinary article.  It was received at Kottoor branch post office on 14-11-2014 through Muliyar Sub Post office.   The letter was delivered from the Kottoor post office on the same day.  The complainant is also equally responsible for checking the web site of the railways to ascertain the date of examination and take further steps if he does not receive the call letter before the examination date.  There is no negligence on the part of the first and second opposite party.  So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.  3^rd opposite party, who was impleaded subsequently confirm that   the complainant was an applicant for the post in Group D of Indian Railways and the written examination was over on 02-11-2014.  The details of eligible candidates were published in the website on 09.10.2014.  The whole job of the examination process was out sourced to a confidential agency.  They are not responsible for non-receipt of the call letter by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. Evidence in the complaint consisted of oral examination of the complainant as PW1.  Exbt. A1 to A5 were marked on his side.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.  On the basis of the evidence adduced the District Commission passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the said order the first and second opposite parties have filed this appeal.

           7. Heard both sides.

          8. The authorised representative for the appellant submitted that the article was received at Kottoor Post Office for delivery only on 14/11/2014 and it was delivered to the complainant on the same day.   There is no delay on the part of the Branch Post Master or delivery agent at Kottoor Branch Post Office.  He submitted that if the complainant was serious enough to write the examination, he should have simultaneously verified the website of the Railways also to ascertain about the date of examination etc.  The appellant also submitted that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the Department of Posts is absolved from the responsibility in the event of any loss or/misdelivery of any postal article if it was not done wilfully or fraudulently.  There is no personal allegation of any deliberate action from the 2^nd opposite party regarding the delivery of the letter.  In the absence of   any wilful act or default or fraud on the part of the officials of the department of posts, they are not liable for any deficiency in service and to pay compensation. Hence the appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Commission. 

          9. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that he lost an opportunity to write the examination of the Railways only because of the delay in getting the call letter.  The date of posting the letter on 09-10-2014 is evident and they took more than a month to deliver a letter.  Because of their negligence he lost a great career opportunity.   Hence he prayed for confirming the order of the District Commission and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

          10. We have considered the submissions on both sides and carefully examined the records.   This is a case   in which   an educated unemployed youth lost an opportunity to write an examination of the Indian Railways because of the delay in getting the call letter despatched through post office.  It is evident that the call letter was posted on 09-10-2014 and it was in the custody and control of the appellants from that date.  It is also an admitted fact that the letter was delivered only after a month on 14.11.2014.  There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that there is no deficiency on their part as the letter was received and delivered by the delivery post office on the same day. It is true that there is no lapse on the part of the Kottoor Branch Post Office. The letter was in the custody of the Department from the date of posting on 09.10.2014 till it was delivered and there is no explanation as to where this letter was till 14.11.2014. The Department should have ascertained the cause of the delay from 09.10.2014 to 14.11.2014, excluding the days generally required for conveying the letter from the place of despatch to the place of delivery.  They should have enquired as to where this letter was stuck in between, what was the reason for the delay, who was at fault, etc. and taken appropriate corrective action.  The complainant/addressee cannot be held responsible for such delays.   The case is regarding the negligence on the part of the first and second opposite party and so there is no merit in the contention that the complainant / respondent also should have been more vigilant and should have enquired about the examination details. Moreover, the fact remains that even if he ascertains from other sources about the examination date, time, venue etc. he cannot appear for the examination without producing the call letter.      

11.  The appellants have also taken recourse to protection provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. As regards the applicability of section 6 of the said Act we are of the view that immunity under this provision will not come to rescue the appellants/opposite parties in this case. Following observations made by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Union of India Vs Amal Chandra Hore {I (2020) CPJ 341 (NC)} is relevant in this case:

“26. Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its consumers............It cannot be that the concerned officials of the Postal Department are immune to accountability within the Department, and also immune to accountability before a court / tribunal of law.”

It further observed that

“27. Section 6 does not provide unquestionable immunity. The onus to establish that protection of section 6 can be taken in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Postal Department, which onus it has not discharged in this case. And this has to be seen in conjunction with the deficiency in service under the Act, 1986………………….”.   

12.  In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. We concur with the finding of the District Commission that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants /Opposite Parties in handling the postal article entrusted to them.  Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

In the result the appeal is dismissed and the order dated 24-06-2016 of the District Commission is confirmed.  There is no order as to costs. 

          The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards statutory deposit at the time of the filing of the appeal.  The first respondent/ complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application.  The balance amount as per order of the District Commission shall be paid by the  appellants within 30  days  from the date of receipt  of a copy  of this  order failing  which the complainant / respondent is at liberty to proceed with execution  proceedings.

                                                                Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                            Sd/-

                              T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER   

                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                           RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb