Orissa

Debagarh

CC/6/2020

Hrushikesh Naik, aged about25 years, S/O-Raghumani Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

District Postal Inspector - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2020

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C. Case No-    06/2020

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Hrushikesh Naik, aged about 25 years,

S/O-Raghumani Naik,

At- Ghuntuliaposhi, P.O- Karalaga,

P.S- Kundheigola, Dist-Deogarh.                                       …. Complainant

                                             Vrs.

                   1. District  Postal Inspector,

                       At/PO/Dist-Deogarh.

                   2. Karlaga B.O,

                       At/P.O-Karalaga, P.s-Kundheigola,

                       Dist-Deogarh.                                                                      …. O.Ps.

 

                                     For the O.Ps  -                       Miss. Shrabani Pradhan

(O.P-1 & the Authorised Person on behalf of O.P-2).

 

DATE OF HEARING: 23.03.2020, DATE OF ORDER: 22.10.2020.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-         Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant as applied for the post of junior typist in the judgeship of Nayagarh District and the written examination for the post was on dtd. 05.01.2020. The Complainant was shortlisted for the written exam and intimation letter was sent through post by the authority.  But due to the mistake of the O.Ps he did not receive the intimation letter and could not appear the exam. By tracking he came to know that though the intimation letter sent by the authority on dtd. 21.12.2019 but he did not receive till .04.01.2020. The Complainant received the letter from Karalaga B.O after the examination i.e on dt. 06.01.2020 through a person of vill- Ghutuliposhi who is the husband of the O.P.2 and not related to postal dept. Prior to that the Complainant had enquired to the O.P-2 but he denied having any letter in the name of the Complainant.  The Complainant a written complaint   against the O.P-2 and made a grievance letter to the Collector, Deogarh at Reamal but in vain. According to the O.P-1 the registered article (Intimation Letter) no-RO-947587053 IN booked on dtd. 16.12.2019 addressed to the   Complainant  was  received  at   Reamal  SO  on  dtd.   20.12.2019  and sent to    Karalaga  B.O  on  the   same  was  day  for delivery  but  the  same  was

inadvertently kept in deposit. After making inquiry by the Complainant the GDS.BPM, Karalaga BO searched the article and handed over it to the addressee/Complainant on dtd. 06.01.2020 which was claimed not a wilful act or default. The O.P-1 taken the plea of sec-6 of “The Indian Post-Office Act-1898” taking preliminary objections that the postal department and its officers were exempted from any liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay/ damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and no officer shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless the same was caused fraudulently or by willful act or default according to section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and tried to defend herself to escape from the responsibility.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service and unfair trade practice to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and material available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of consumer of the O.Ps as he has paid the required postal charges against the letter which was delivered to him through post. The call letter for a written examination for a job was sent to the candidate by registered post on 16.12.2019. The test was scheduled on 05.01.2020. However, the registered post was delivered to the candidate on 06.01.2020, which is 21 days after the date of dispatch. Though the O.Ps has taken the plea of section-6 of  the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 but any statute providing immunity as to the liability of service provider does not come in the way of right of consumer to the compensated in terms in section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the O.Ps should  pay such an amount as compensation for any loss or injury including mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort suffered by consumer due to the negligence committed by them(the O.Ps),as to not maintaining standard of service. We hold that Section-6 is not providing a windscreen to the O.Ps (postal authorities) to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc., on their part in discharge of their official duties. Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their part. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Post Office & Anr. vs Akhilesh Grover” decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 6 October, 2017. Hence, the act of the OP-2 i.e willfully and carelessly keeping the letter in deposit and not considering the importance and urgency of this letter which caused delay in its delivery one day after the date of examination clearly constitutes an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2. The Complainant missed an opportunity of getting the job for the post post of junior typist in the judgeship of Nayagarh District because of delay by the post office. Again being a Govt. employee, the O.P-2 trusted and sent the letter through her husband who is  not from their department is another example of disloyalty to her post and power. As the charges against the O.P-1 is not proved, she is exempted from any liability.

 

ORDER

 

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-2 is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) as compensation for mental pain and agony along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.  

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 22^nd day of October-2020 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree,                                                   I agree,         

 

MEMBER.(W)                                      MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

 

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                       by me.                            

 

    PRESIDENT