Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that she is holder of degrees in M.Sc (Math), M.Ed.UGC NET (Education) and now she is private teacher. SDP College for Women, Ludhiana invited the applications for the various posts of Assistant Profession on regular basis and the advertisement was published in newspaper dated 15.2.2017 and last date of submission of applications was 07.03.2017 in which there was one post of Math for which the complainant is eligible for apply the same and accordingly, the complainant sent her application through registered post bearing No.RP613833300IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.58 am from Opposite Party No.3 to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University Chandigarh as well as S.D.P College for Women, Ludhiana through registered post bearing No.RP613833185IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.59 am from Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 has forwarded the post to their respective branches, but they have not sent the post to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and the application was required to be set to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh from this office, the list of candidates to be called for interview was to be mailed/ sent to S.D.P College for Women, Ludhiana, but Opposite Parties did not send the article to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and due to which the name of complainant did not appear as a candidate on the list of candidates from the Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and due to this reason, the complainant was not called by the concerned college for giving interview and due to this reason, the complainant has missed the opportunity of taking her job for which she is completely eligible. Lateron, it has come to the notice of the complainant that the Opposite Parties have delivered the letter on some wrong address. In this way, the Opposite Parties failed to render the requisite services to the complainant and the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay appropriate compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for harassment, mental agony, financial loss and loss in job.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. In fact, no employee of department has wrongly delivered the said parcel fraudulently or by his wilful act of default as alleged. As per Indian Post office Act, 1898 in case of lost parcel/ wrong delivery, the compensation of Rs.100/- has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA longwith copies of documents Ex.RW1 and Ex.RW2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant is holder of degrees in M.Sc (Math), M.Ed.UGC NET (Education) and now she is private teacher. SDP College for Women, Ludhiana invited the applications for the various posts of Assistant Profession on regular basis and the advertisement was published in newspaper dated 15.2.2017 and last date of submission of applications was 07.03.2017 in which there was one post of Math for which the complainant is eligible for apply the same and accordingly, the complainant sent her application through registered post bearing No.RP613833300IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.58 am from Opposite Party No.3 to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University Chandigarh as well as S.D.P College for Women, Ludhiana through registered post bearing No.RP613833185IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.59 am from Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 has forwarded the post to their respective branches, but they have not sent the post to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and the application was required to be set to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh from this office, the list of candidates to be called for interview was to be mailed/ sent to S.D.P College for Women, Ludhiana, but Opposite Parties did not send the article to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and due to which the name of complainant did not appear as a candidate on the list of candidates from the Dean College Development Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh and due to this reason, the complainant was not called by the concerned college for giving interview and due to this reason, the complainant has missed the opportunity of taking her job for which she is completely eligible. Lateron, it has come to the notice of the complainant that the Opposite Parties have delivered the letter on some wrong address. In this way, the Opposite Parties failed to render the requisite services to the complainant and the complainant suffered huge mental tension and harassment due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that in fact, no employee of department has wrongly delivered the said parcel fraudulently or by his wilful act of default as alleged. As per Indian Post office Act, 1898 in case of lost parcel/ wrong delivery, the compensation of Rs.100/- has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant sent her application through registered post bearing No.RP613833300IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.58 am from Opposite Party No.3 to Dean College Development Council, Panjab University Chandigarh as well as S.D.P College for Women, Ludhiana through registered post bearing No.RP613833185IN dated 1.3.2017 at 9.59 am from Opposite Party No.3. To prove this assertion, the complainant has placed on record the postal proof Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. Not only this, when the complainant tried to sought the information in this regard from the Opposite Parties under RTI Act, 2005 for non delivery of parcel, the Opposite Parties did not bother and not gave any satisfactory reply in this regard and due to this, the complainant must have suffered loss as prayed for in her complaint. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties has only took defence that as per Indian Post office Act, 1898 in case of lost parcel/ wrong delivery, the compensation of Rs.100/- has been fixed by the government and the same can not be exceed, but by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the complainant. From the act and conduct of the opposite parties it is fully established there is some dishonest intention on the part of the opposite parties because there is no evidence on behalf of the opposite parties to show reason for the non delivery of the courier/ parcel the destination. Moreover, the opposite parties have tried to absolve themselves from their liability by taking shelter of Indian Post office Act, 1898.
10. In view of our aforesaid discussion the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved on record and the same is not to be overlooked keeping in view the fact that the parcel sent by the complainant to addressee did not reached which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
11. The Complainant has prayed for the directions to the Opposite Parties to pay her compensation amounting to Rs.2 lakhs but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against all the Opposite Parties and all the Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
13. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
