Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1194/2010

Baljeet Singh s/o Sh.Mansa Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Superintendent of Post office - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 1194  of  2010.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 17.12.2010

                                                                                          Date of decision: 24.08.2016.

 

Baljeet Singh aged about 33 years son of Sh. Mansa Ram, resident of village Mandebar, Post Office Aurangabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Superintendent of Post Office, General Post Office Ambala Cantt, Ambala-133001.   
3. Kamal Kumar, Postman for the post office of village Mandebar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.   

              Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1 & 2.

              None for respondent No. 3. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Baljeet Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as OP No.3) is posted as postman for delivering the postal letter in the area of the post office i.e. village of the complainant after getting his salary from the department of OPs No.1 & 2. Being inhabitants of same village, there is some friction in between the complainant and OP No.3 due to that Op No.3 started keeping enmity towards the complainant in his mind. So many calls had been come from the different department for the complainant through postal department of the OPs No.1 & 2 for his employment but since 2000 to till date, the OP No.3 held every call letter with him through which the complainant was called by different departments due to enmity towards the complainant. Even, in the last week of October, 2009, a call letter was handed over to the complainant to appear in examination on 31.10.2009 but due to malafide intention of the Op No.3, the said letter was in open state and the same was re-pasted. One another letter dated 23.04.2009 was delivered to the complainant after marked cross over the address of the complainant. The other interview letter sent by speed post bearing No. 51739113 dated 02.12.2009 had also came from Kanpur and the said letter had not intentionally been delivered to the complainant by OP No.3 due to that complainant could not get job with the concerned department. Another one call letter came from BHEL Jhansi in respect of written exam which was to be conducted on 14.02.2010 was also handed over to the complainant at 6.00 P.M. on 13.02.2010 i.e. just only one day before the examination. However, this letter was delivered from Jhansi on 29.01.2010. It has been further stated that complainant had taken a print from internet, in which one interview  was scheduled by BHEL Kanpur for 14.12.2009 but no letter in this regard has been given to the complainant by the OP No.3. The said acts of the OP No.3 are only an example of illegal acts and apart from these acts the Op No.3 has committed so many other acts towards the complainant. The complainant has made so many requested to OP No.3 not to do these illegal acts but OP No.3 did not comply with the complainant and keep himself indulge in illegal activities. The complainant has also written so many complaints to the OPs No.1 & 2 but a minor penalty had been imposed upon OP No.3 which is not as per illegal acts of the OP No.3 whereas OP No.3 was liable to be terminated from his duty. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint seeking direction to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant for the sake of spoiling the future of the complainant and for mental agony and harassment.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action; no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has concocted a false story; Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and on merit it has been admitted that OpNo.3 is working as GDSMD/C Aurangabad Branch Office since 1993 under the control and supervision of OPs No.1 & 2. However, rest allegations have been specifically denied. It has been further mentioned that the present complaint is nothing but the same is an out come of enmity in between the complainant and OP No.3. However, it has been admitted that OP No.3 delivered one letter on 13.02.2010 at about 6.00 P.M. only after receiving the same in due process from the concerned office of OPs No.1 & 2 department. However, it has been denied that due to the negligence act of the OP No.3 one another chance for getting proper job has been left from the hands of the complainant. Lastly, it has been prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.

4.                     OP No.3 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3; the complainant has no cause of action; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and on merit it has been admitted that OP No.3 is serving as postman. However, it has been specifically denied that OP No.3 kept any enemic view towards the complainant, further, never stopped delivering the letter/post to the complainant or his family members. All the post/letters which comes under the name of complainant, the same has been delivered to the complainant according to the rules of the postal department. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

5.                     In support of his version, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and photo copies of documents such as copy of enquiry letter as Annexure C-1, copy of complaint made by the complainant as Annexure C-2 to C-5, Statement of Joginder as Annexure C-6, Statement of Naresh Kumar as Annexure C-7, Statement of Baljit Singh son of Banarsi Dass as Annexure C-8, Statement of Baljit Ram as Annexure C-9, statement of Baljit Singh s/o Sh. Mansa Ram as Annexure C-10, copy of matric mark sheet as Annexure C-11,  Admit card issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as Annexure C-12, Admit card issued by BHEL Jhansi as Annexure C-13, Application/advertisement as Annexure C-14, Call letters/ Interview letters, exam admit cards etc. issued by various department as Annexure C-15 to C-32 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rameshwar Dass as Annexure RW/A and document such as Photo copy of report of enquiry conducted by the Assistant Superintendent Post Office, Sub Division, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2.

7.                     OP No.3 failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities; hence his evidence was closed by court order on 06.05.2016.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the complaint, reply of OP No.3 and documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     From the perusal of documents Annexure C-1 Intimation letter and Annexure R-1 Enquiry report, it is clearly evident that on the complaint of the complainant a detailed enquiry was conducted by the official of OPs No.1 & 2 and during the enquiry, statements of some persons were also recorded and according to enquiry conducted by the official of OPs No.1 & 2, it was found that on 02.12.2009 a speed post letter bearing serial No. 051739113 which was to be delivered to the complainant was returned by the Op No.3 Kamal Kumar with malafide intention. So the allegations leveled by the complainant against the OP No.3 were correct and the OP No.3 was penalized debarring him from appearing in promotional exam of the postman for one year. In the last para of this report Annexure R-1, it is clearly mentioned that a soft corner has been adopted by the official of OPs No.1 & 2 i.e.by the enquiry officer against the OpNo.3 which is totally illegal, against the natural justice. Further, the OP No.3 has totally failed to file any evidence in support of his version, even did not bother to file his affidavit to controvert the version of the complainant whereas on the other hand, complainant has filed copies of so many complaints Annexure C-2 to C-5 sent to the Higher Authority of OP No.3 and has also further filed so many interview letters call letters/admit cards in support of his version. Even, the version of the complainant is duly supported by his unrebutted affidavit.

10.                   Although the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence to prove that he in fact could not attend the exams or interview on the scheduled date as mentioned in the various admit cards/interview call letters/letter for examination which is evident from Annexure C-12 to C-32, even then it has been held in the enquiry report Annexure R-1 that the Op No.3 was not delivered the letters/speed posts to the complainant with malafide intention due to which the complainant might have suffered mental agony, harassment and economic loss. This act of the OP No.3 constitute deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and complainant is entitled to get some relief and the same view has been held in case titled as Superintendent Post Office and others Versus Upovokta Surakshege Parisad, 1997(1) CPC Page 246 National Commission wherein it has been held “that Postal Service- Postal reverse- Consumer- Complainant received letter late which resulted in loss of one year in the educational career of the reliant. The delay in delivery of postal articles amounts to a willful act on the part of the postal employees and are they burdened with compensation of Rs. 1000/-“.

                        Further, the same view has been held in case titled as M/s Dharamraj Rajender Sood Versus B.N. Kondhal and others, 2001 (3) CR page 136; 2002(2) CLT National Commission page 256 in which it has been held “that postal service- Deficiency in service- Dakof the complaint mis provided with malafide intention and he suffered loss-claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- District Forum did not allow any relief but on appeal State Commission allowed compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Dissatisfied complainant filed appeal claim Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages- Held to be not a fit case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 2(1) (b) of the C.P. Act.”

                        In the present case also, OP No.3 has not delivered the letters to the complainant with his malafide intention or will full act which constitute deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, complainant is entitled to get some relief and the OPs are liable jointly and severally being master and servant.

11                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. However, OPs no.1 & 2 are at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the salary of OP No.3. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 24.08.2016.

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER