C.F. CASE No.                      :            CC/10/79                                                                                                                                           

COMPLAINANT                  :           Bablu Sheikh

                                    S/o Kashu Sheikh

                                    Vill. Bethuadahari Uttarpara,

                                    P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,

                                    Dist. Nadia

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs:   1)      Director,

                                    G.P.O.

Kolkata 700001.

2. Post Master,

Bethuadahari Post Office,

P.O. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,

                                    Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                               :     SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

                      :     SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                    :          23^rd February,  2011

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainant is that he applied for the post of Peon before the Joint Commissioner of Police, Kolkata.  With regard to his application Joint Commissioner of Police sent one interview letter on 24.08.09 by post through OP No. 1 & 2 and the date of interview was 05.09.09.  But the said interview letter was received by him through OP No. 2 on 30.09.09 as a result of which he being an unemployed person failed to appear before the interview board and lost a chance to have a job.  This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs due to which he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

            OP No. 1 has filed a written version, inter alia, stating that this complainant is not a consumer as per provision of CP Act.  So he has no locus standi to file this case.  It is his submission that the date of posting of this letter under reference is not at all clear.  Besides this, the letter was sent by ordinary post with a postage stamp of Rs. 5/- and ordinary letters posted in side Kolkata G.P.O. premises come under the Administrative and Operative control of the Sr. Superintendent, Kolkata RMS Division and as such this OP is not connected with this disputes of this case.  He has also stated that as per provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with clause 84 of Post Office Guide part-1 postal authority is not responsible for any mis-delivery, or loss delay of any postage article during transactions.  So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case as no question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 does arise and the case is liable to be dismissed against him.

            OP No. 2 has filed a separate written version, inter alia, stating that this complainant is not a consumer under the Post Office, so the case is not maintainable.  It is his specific submission also that on enquiry it is learnt by the Department that the alleged letter sent by the Jt. Commissioner of Police, Kolkata – 1 was received by this OP No. 2 on 30.09.09 at Bethuadahari Post Office and the said letter was delivered to the complainant on the self same date.  So there is no question of any deficiency in service on his part does arise.  He has also relied on Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Post Office Guide, Part-1 which speaks that with regard to misdelivery, delay delivered or loss of any postage article on transactions no liability rests upon the postal department.  Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1:          Is the complainant a consumer?         

Point No.2:         Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.3:          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.

            On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with annexed documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers of the parties it is available on record that Joint Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Kolkata sent one interview letter to this complainant on 22.08.09 vide memo No. 13972/Estt for the post of peon and the letter was sent by him through G.P.O. Kolkata on 24.08.09 (Annexure – 2). From the 'Annexure – 1’ i.e., the interview letter, it is available that the date of interview was fixed on 05.09.09 at 10 am.  The letter was delivered to the complainant on 30.09.09 by the OP No. 2 vide 'Annexure – 3’.   Considering the 'Annexure – 1, 2 & 3’ we find that the interview letter was delivered to the complainant on 30.09.09, though the date of interview was 05.09.09 and the interview letter was posted on 24.08.09.  Now the main question is whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 for delay in delivering the letter to the complainant.  Ld. lawyer for the complainant has cited a ruling from IV (2009) CPJ 334 passed by West Bengal State Commission in which it is decided “Abnormal delay of about 41 days in delivering the call letter proved – Complainant suffered loss of golden opportunity due to negligence of postal authorities – Deficiency in services proved” and the Hon'ble State Commission allowed compensation to the complainant of that case.  Ld. lawyer for the OP has cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission dtd. 15.04.93 in connection with revision petition No. 175 of 1992 in which the Hon'ble National Commission ordered, “We are of the opinion that both the claim petitions referred to above are not maintainable in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act.  As noticed earlier there is no allegation that loss, misdelivery or delay occurred on account of fraudulent and wilful Act of any particular postal employee.”  Ld. lawyer for the OP has also referred to Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1998 which speaks “No officer of the 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.” 

On a careful perusal of the above cited rulings of Hon'ble State Commission coupled with the Postal Act, we find that in this instant case there is no allegation of any fraudulent or wilful act on the part of the OP No. 1 causing delay in delivery of the letter to the complainant.  We do also hold that in view of the above findings of the Hon'ble State Commission the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for.

            Ld. lawyer for the OP submits that the complainant is not a consumer as the letter was sent by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Kolkata.  So actually he is the consumer of this case.    The fact is that the letter was sent by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, but it was the interview letter in favour of the complainant for the post peon.  So we find that this interview letter was issued for the interest of the complainant.  Actually he is the beneficiary.  As per provision of CP Act, beneficiary is a consumer also.  So the complainant is a consumer in this case. 

            Therefore, in view of above discussions and considering the facts of this we hold that as the complainant has not become able to prove his case, so he is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.  In result the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/10/79 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.   

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.