DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 69 of 7.3.2008<br /> Decided on : 24.4.2008 <br /> <br /> Karamjeet Kaur D/o Gurjant Singh, R/o Chak Fateh Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Department of Posts, Bathinda Division, Bathinda-151005 through Superintendent of Post Office.<br /> 2.Superintendent of Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda 151 Division, Cantt., Bathinda-151005.<br /> 3.The SSRM Ld Dn, Ludhiana<br /> 4.Post Master, General Post Office, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. M.R Gupta, Advocate <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had applied for the post of General Nurse Midwife in Primary Health Centre/C.H.C being eligible for the same. Application alongwith attested copies of the certificates/documents was sent to the Chairman-cum-Civil Surgeon, Muktsar vide registered letter No. 474 dated 17.12.2007 through opposite party No. 4 by way of paying the requisite fee. Interview for the post was to be held on 28.12.2007. No interview letter was received by her in response to the application sent by her. An application was moved by her brother Gurlal Singh to opposite party No. 4 on 29.12.2007 intimating that registered letter containing application and other documents was not received by the addressee at Muktsar. After inquiry was held, it came to light that the letter in question was sent by the officials of Postal Department to Mansa instead of to the addressee at Muktsar. It is alleged that due the negligence of the officials of the opposite parties, her application could not reach the concerned department at Muktsar as a result of which she was not called for interview and her candidature was not considered for the post. She has obtained more than 70% marks in GNM. She belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Had her application reached the addressee, she was sure to be appointed as GNM. She has undergone huge loss. Opposite parties were approached to compensate her for the loss, but to no effect. She got served legal notice upon the opposite parties through her counsel calling upon them to pay the compensation, but no proper reply was sent. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss undergone by her and for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for non-joinder of Union of India as party; intricate questions are involved and as such, dispute should be relegated to the civil court; complaint made is false and frivolous; complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum; she has not come with clean hands and she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. On receipt of complaint for non-delivery of the registered letter, enquiry was conducted. It was found that registered letter was mistakenly delivered to Civil Surgeon, Mansa instead of Civil Surgeon, Muktsar. They deny that there is willful and intentional negligence on their part. If this Forum finds that she is entitled for some compensation, then as per departmental rules, she is entitled for double of the registered postal charges. As per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Department of Posts has no liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission.<br /> 3. In support of her allegations and averments in the complaint, Karamjit Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex.C.2), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.3), photocopies of letters (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5), photocopy of application form (Ex.C.6) & photocopy of postal receipt (Ex.C.7).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite party, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. D.S Jammu.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 6. One of the objections taken by the opposite parties is that complaint is bad for non-joinder of Union of India as opposite party. No relief has been sought against Union of India. Even otherwise, non-joinder of party cannot be made a ground for dismissal of the complaint. For this, reference may be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savita Garg Vs. The Director, National Heart Institute-2004(2)CPC-675.<br /> 7. Complainant has proved by way of her affidavit that she had applied for the post of GNM. Application alongwith copies of the certificates was sent to the Chairman-cum-Civil Surgeon, Muktsar through registered letter No.474 dated 17.12.2007 through opposite party No.4. Copy of the postal receipt of the registered letter is Ex.C.7. It did not reach the destination. Her brother had moved an application, copy of this is Ex.C.5 to opposite party No. 4 intimating that registered letter did not reach the addressee and on that account his sister could not appear for interview. Opposite parties admit that registered letter was sent by the complainant. Their plea is that it was mistakenly delivered to Civil Surgeon, Mansa instead of Civil Surgeon, Muktsar. This fact is also evident from the copy Ex.C.4 of letter of Superintendent of Post Offices, Bathinda to Sub Post Master, Mansa as well as from affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. D.S. Jammu, Superintendent of Post Offices, Bathinda.<br /> 8. Opposite parties are taking the shelter of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and are asserting that there is no deficiency in service. Section 6 of this Act is reproduced as under :-<br /> “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms by under taken by Central Government as hereinafter provided, and no officer of post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default.”<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no fraudulent or wilful default on the part of the officials of the opposite parties on account of the misdelivery of the registered letter sent by the complainant. <br /> 10. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the facts and circumstances of this case clearly prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Under the garb of Section 6, they cannot evade their liability nor can they say that there is no wilful and intentional default on their part.<br /> 11. We have considered respective arguments. Not doing something what was ought to be done is also an act of will and, therefore, covered by “wilful act'' mentioned in Section 6 as one of the circumstances, where, the liability can be fixed on the Postal Department and its functionaries. For this, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. VS. Upovokta Surakshya Parisad-III(1996)CPJ-105(NC). <br /> 12. No-doubt, section 6 exempts the liability of the post office for loss, misdelivery or damage caused to any postal article in the course of transmission. Similar matter came before the Hon'ble State Commission, Tamil Nadu in the case of Postmaster, Head Post Office Vs. Y.K. Swaminathan-2004(3)CLT-98 in which it was held as under :-<br /> “What is the postal article has not been defined in the Act. Section 28 refers to registration of postal articles. A reading of Section 6 would show that it cannot refer to a registered letter. Otherwise, the purpose of sending a letter by registered post will loose its significance. If it is a letter sent by the ordinary post since the postal department is handling thousands of letter a day. It will be difficult, of course, for them to assure cent percent delivery of all those articles. But, when it is sent by the registered post, it acquires a special significance. In that, there is an assure of delivery accompanied by reason of registration of the letter. Therefore, in the absence of any specific mention of registered letters in Section 6, we are of the view that the exemption provided under Section 6 cannot extend to a letter sent by the registered post. When a letter is accepted for delivery under registration, there is an indirect covenant or guarantee by the Postal Department assuring the delivery of the same. If it is a case of delay in delivery, of course, Section 6 may, perhaps, be relied upon. But, it is a case of non-delivery, when the letter is accepted for being transmitted as a registered letter, it carries along with it an assurance by the opposite party to reach it to the addressee. This is a letter sent admittedly by the Registered Post with Acknowledgment due. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the opposite party to see, that it is delivered. Inasmuch as the duty is not performed, there is infraction of duty leading to consequent deficiency in service. Therefore, we hold that the opposite party is liable for deficiency in service.”<br /> 13. In the case in hand, opposite parties were well aware that envelope was got registered by the complainant by way of paying the requisite charges. When envelope is sent by registered post, it acquires special significance. It could be delivered only to the addressee after getting signatures. Concerned officials did not bother to perform their duty carefully and cautiously. They sent the registered letter at Mansa instead of to the addressee at Muktsar. Registered letter was sent on 17.12.2007. If it was received at Mansa, concerned officials at Mansa could either return it to the remitting Post Office or to the complainant or they could re-direct the same to the addressee at Muktsar. As per version of the complainant interview for the post was on 28.12.2007. Act and conduct of the concerned officials of the opposite parties who were assigned with the delivery of the registered letter and who did not perform their duty diligently amount to their wilful default. No explanation has been given as to how the letter was received at Mansa particularly when it was not addressed to any person of Mansa. Opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the situation by merely saying that it was mistakenly sent to Mansa. We have, therefore, no doubt that the service of the opposite parties in misdelivering the registered letter was a deficient service and misdelivery of registered letter to a wrong person is an act of negligence because every employee who is assigned with the delivery of the registered letter is supposed to know that envelope contains valuable documents and registration fee has been paid by the consumer to see that letter is delivered to the right addressee after taking his signatures. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Gujarat in the case of Department of Posts Vs. J.K Diagnostics-I(1994)CPJ-291. We are also fortified from the authorities Head Post Office (Post Master) & Anr. Vs. Basanta Sahoo-IV(2005)CPJ-551, Senior Post Master, Thanjavur Vs. Chakravarthi-2006(3)CLT-408 and Parma Nand Gupta Vs. Union of India and others-2005(3)CLT-251.<br /> 14. As a result of our forgoing discussion, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant claims that she has obtained more than 70% marks in GNM and she belongs to Schedule Caste community. Had her application sent through registered letter reached the Chairman-cum-Civil Surgeon, Muktsar well in time, she would have been appointed as GNM. We are unable to endorse this view of the complainant in toto. She has not placed any material on the record that candidates possessing less marks than her and belonging to Scheduled Caste have been appointed for the posts of GNM. However, one thing is clear that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties must have caused her mental tension, agony and harassment for which she deserves some compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that apt and appropriate compensation in this case is Rs. 2,000/-.<br /> 15. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 16. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 17. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 24.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />