CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. CC.No.20/08 Saturday, the day of, 10th, December, 2009. Petitioner. Santhoshkumar.A.K. Aryakombil house Monippally.P.O. Kottayam. (Adv.Louis P.Alencherry) Vs. Opposite party. Chief Post Master General Chief Post Master General’s Office Thiruvananthapuram.
O R D E R Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member. The case of the complainant is as follows. He was a technically qualified I.T.I. Fitter who registered his name with Employment Exchange Palai and is having 12 years experience as apprentice in the government institutions like cochin shipyard Ltd. and other institutions. As per the requisition from the Department of spaces Vikramsarabai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Employment Exchange of Kerala proposed and sponsored the complainant’s candidature for the post of ’’TECHNICIAN-A’’ in the said department in grade of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590. The said department of space centre sent a selection letter to the complainant for submitting complete details of the complainant like Bio-data with photo and attested copies of certificates etc. before 9th March, 2007. The said department sent the call letter on ’’IGS’’ to the complainant with the VSSC post office on 26-2-07. But the post office of complainant delivered the letter to him on 12.3.07. Without prior knowledge about the content of the letter complainant accepted the same and he could understood that it was a call from Space Department of India and the due date is already expired for the submission of the said details of the complainant. And -2- VSSC washed their hands and evaded from their responsibility, through the letter itself with a clause in it that ’’Application received after the last date will not be considered under any circumstances. No interim correspondence will be entertained in this regard. Though the said clause in the letter the complaint lost his chance for appealing before the employer about the postal delay. Moreover, due to the non-appearance in the chance given by them, they or the employment exchange will not consider the complainant for a future chance in any job. In to the complainant lost his golden opportunity for a definite job in a central government organization. Normally any letter posted on IGS in kerala will be delivered to a party in kerala on the very next day as per the norms of postal department. In rare cases it may on 2nd or 3rd day after posting. But in this case postal department committed an unjustifiable delay of 15days in the delivery after posting and this is the willful act and intentional default made by the opposite party which in the one and only reason for the loss of the above said crediable job in ISRO. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and the version filed by the senior superintendent of post offices, kottayam postal division, kottayam-1 contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant alleges late delivery of an ordinary letter sent on IGS by department of space Vikram Sarabi Space Research Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. The above letter was delivered on the day of receipt itself. Ordinary articles are not accounted at any stage, as such no records are being maintain for these. Enquiries conducted at the office of delivery reveals that the article was delivered on the day of its receipt. The date stamp of the office of delivery is very vague. The complainant put blame on the opposite party for the loss of definite job in the central government organisation due to the delayed delivery. As per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898’’ the government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery delay of or damage to any postal -3- article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the central government as hereafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reasons of such loss, mis-delivery delay or damage unless he has caused the same fradulently or by his wilful act or default. In this case there is no such allegation that the opposite party or any office of the department was guilty of fraud or wilful act or wilful default which had delayed the delivery of the postal article. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 and A2. The complainant has examined Senior Superintendent of posts, kottayam Division Kottayam and the post mistress of monippally post office as PW1 and PW2. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the postal authorities has delivered the letter after 15 days of its posting from Thiruvananthapuram to his address at monippally in kottayam District. According to him it was call letter for an interview and the opposite parties has purposefully delayed the delivery. So According the complainant he had not get the job due to the negligent act of the opposite party and their Department. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant’s letter was an ordinary letter and there was no records kept in department that the account of handling of ordinary letters through their department. According to them the letter was reached at the monippally post office on the same day itself the letter was delivered to the Addressee. Accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the department. Admittedly the letter was delivered to the complainant with 15 days delay. The contention of the opposite party is that there was no purposeful delay or default on their part. At the same time the opposite party admitted the delay in delivery of the postal article to the addressee. The opposite party has submitted that they have -4- some immunities/protection under section 6 of the Indian Post office Act, 1898. ’’An officer of post office may be held liable for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage if it can be proved that he has caused such loss mis-delivery, delay or damage by some fraudlent act or willful act or default. Here is a case in which admitedly 15 days delay of delivery of a postal article to the complainant. But there was no evidence adduced by the complainant that the delay was happened due to the willful act of the opposite party. However the complainant has suffered some inconveniences and hardship due to the delay in delivery of the postal letter. The opposite party is a bounden duty to deliver the postal articles to the addressees as early as possible without any default, damage, delay. The opposite party has liable to compensate the complainant. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/- APPENDIX Documents produced by complainant. A1 is the copy of letter dt. 20.2.2007. A2 is the postal cover of Vikram Sarabai Space Centre.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/4 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
