Complaint filed on 02.04.2012     

                                                                                                                                 Compliant disposed on 29.12.2014 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI B.SURESH, B.A., LL.M., Ist ADDL. DIST. &

SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDENT (FAC)
AND

SRI G.SREENIVAS RAO, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR), MEMBER

MONDAY THE 29^TH DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO.58 OF 2012

Between:-

Ali Baba, S/o.Raj Mohammad, Occ: Unemployed student, H.No.4-4-40, Rajiv Nagar of Peddapalli, District Karimnagar, Represented by Raj Mohammad (Parent) (in person)                                                          ……      Complainant                                                                                     

                                    AND

1. Head Postmaster, HPO, Peddapalli, District Karimnagar
2. Superintendent of Post-Offices, Peddapalli, District Karimnagar
3. Director of Post-Offices, GPO, Hyderabad
4. Director General of Post-Offices, New Delhi
5. Director of Post-Offices, Kolkatha (West Bengal)

                                                          ……   Opposite parties

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 31-10-2014, in the presence of Sri Raj Mohammad (parent) representing complainant, opposite party no.1 set exparte and Sri Pinninti Ashok Govt. Pleader for the opposite parties no.2 to 5 and on perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following.

:: O R D E R ::

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of CP Act to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation & damages for the deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- towards costs and any other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.  

Brief facts of the Case

1.       The complainant represented by his father, submits that an application for the post of tutor/demonstrator was sent through speed post from HPO (opposite party no.1) Peddapalli, District Karimnagar on 24.08.2009, to the Registrar, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata. The last date for receipt of applications was 31.08.2009. Whereas the said speed post reached at Kolkata on 02.09.2009 i.e. after the stipulated last date. Consequently the authorities of the university refused to accept the complainant’s application as such the envelope containing the application was returned back to the complainant thus depriving of his legitimate job, the complainant therefore sued for the negligence and deficiency in service making opposite parties responsible; Hence prayed for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs) for irreparable loss i.e., loss of job, mental agony & suffering.

2.       a)       The opposite party no.1 remained exparte and the Opposite party no.2 was represented by the Govt. Pleader and other opposite parties no.3 to 5 adopted the version of opposite party no.2.

          The opposite party no.2 admitted that the complainant sent a speed post article bearing No.EN4095860311N on 24.08.2009 at Peddapalli, Head Post Office at the opposite party no.1 office which was addressed to the Registrar, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, D.D-36, Sector-I, Salt lake City, Kolkata-64. He further admitted that the said speed post article reached Kolkata on 02.09.2009 and the same was returned to sender on 03.09.2009 with a remark “addressee refused” The same was delivered to the sender on 12.09.2009. As such there is no deficiency in service in transmission of the said speed post article. The complainant paid Rs.57/- towards charges for the speed post and no additional expenditure was incurred.

          b)       The opposite party further submits that, as per sec-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898. “The Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, miss delivery 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 term be undertaken by the Central Government hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by the reason of any such loss or miss delivery or delay or damage and unless caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

          c)       The Opposite party relied on the decision of the Ho’ble National Commission, New Delhi in RP No.986 of 1996, as held that “Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 gives complete immunity to the Government and its employees, except in the cases specified there in we see no reason to depart from this well established principle”. In this case also, since the speed post article has reached the destination and on refusal by the addressee, the same was delivered to the sender. There is no deficiency of service as claimed by the complainant and no assurance of delivery within a period of time, was given to the complainant by the opposite party no.1 nor by any of other opposite parties, therefore the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.       The complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents marked as exhibits from A1 to A22 and the opposite parties led the evidence from B1 to B2.

          Now the point for consideration is, Whether the opposite parties are responsible for the deficiency in service? If so, to what relief?

POINT

4.       The complainant has sent on 24.08.2009 an article containing the application from for the post of tutor to Kolkata through speed post of opposite party no.1 by paying Rs.57/- as charges towards it. The last date for submission being 31.08.2009 but the speed post article reached Kolkata on 02.09.2009 and the addressee refused to accept the same and the postal authorities sent it back to the sender. The complainant averred that due to delayed dispatch of the speed post article beyond 7 days from booking, he lost an opportunity of securing a job in the university at Kolkata as such he held the opposite parties for the deficiency in service & negligence.

5.       The complainant led the evidence in detail as Ex.A1 speed post cover showing refusal/endorsement along with slip for Rs.57/- dt: 24.08.2009 booked at Peddapalli. The Ex.A2 is the Advertisement of the West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata with No.1/2009 dt: 11.08.2009 showing the post of tutor/demonstrator with scale of pay as Rs.9000/- to Rs.40,500/- with higher initial Rs.15,600+AGP Rs.5400 and the last date for submission was 31.08.2009; Ex.A3 is the RTI application made to opposite party no.2 dt: 09.10.2009, Ex.A4 is the reply under RTI Act by opposite party no.2 assuring the compensation if the delay caused due to postal department as per rules, Ex.A5 is the Letter of Appeal dt: 10.11.2009 to Director General of post office, New Delhi seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of the job; Ex.A6 is the communication of Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle dt: 10.03.2010 sent to I Appellate Authority at Hyderabad; Ex.A7 dt: 19.03.2010 similar to Ex.A6; Ex.A8 is the letter of complaint dt: 21.04.2010 to Appellate Authority of postal department, Hyderabad with certificate of posting (6 pages); Ex.A9 is the Legal notice of complainant dt: 14.01.2012 to all the opposite parties/seeking 6 lakhs compensation (details as opposite party no.1/50k; opposite party no.2/50k; opposite party no.3/2lakhs; opposite party no.4/2lakhs and opposite party no.5/1lakhs); Ex.A10 to A13 are the Acknowledgment due originals; Ex.A14 is the letter of reminder to Superintendent Head Post Office/opposite party no.2 dt: 13.09.2011 with acknowledgment of opposite party no.2 with seal; Ex.A15 is the Application form of complainant showing his qualification as M.Sc. (Medical Bio-Chemistry) (7 pages) Ex.A16 to A22 are the copies of other certificates.

6.       The opposite parties relied on Ex.B1 which is letter of department of post India dt: 13.06.2013 addressed to Hyderabad region regarding Display of delivery norms and the Ex.B2 is the continuation of Ex.B1 showing number of days required for delivery of speed post as 2 days for local and metrocities (including Kolkata) and rest of India 4-6 days are the norms.

7.       On careful perusal of the respective submissions, it is clear that the speed post article had reached the destination after 9 days from the date of booking of the article (envelope containing application). The opposite party in his evidence (Ex.B1 & B2) shows that the time period for transmission in local and metro cities is 2 days only. The booking of the speed post was done on 24.08.2009 and article was supposed to be delivery before 31.08.2009 being the last date for entertaining the application from the candidate. The postal authorities had 8 days available to them to deliver the speed post at the destination but failed to do so. The reason for the inordinate delay was not explained by the authorities of the postal department. So the opposite parties are held liable for such negligence & deficiency in service.

8.       Whereas the only defence for the opposite parties was sec-6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 which gives immunity against the liability. But the complainant relied on the following judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission: Head Post Master & Anr Vs Neeraj Gupta in       RP No.664 of 2013 decided on 21.05.2013, II (2013) CPJ 732 (NC),     held that,

“For the inordinate delay in delivery of the speed post article which had cost an unemployed youth his chances for obtaining a job, the department is trying to get out by paying a paltry compensation of Rs.20,000/-, we feel that amount can in no way compensate the respondent for the lost opportunity”.

9.       In the reply letter of the opposite party no.2 (Ex.A4) he committed that “compensation will be paid to you for delay in delivery of speed post article if found delay is caused by postal department. Similarly, in the reply given by the opposite party no.4 dt: 10.03.2010 (Ex.A6) the Appellate Authority was told to take necessary action at his end and another letter dt: 19.03.2010 (Ex.A7) of opposite parties sent from AP Circle to Hyderabad region for similar action, whereas no action was taken by the postal department. The complainant did put his best efforts to sought redressal from the postal department (Ex.A3 to A8) and finally a Legal Notice dt: 14.01.2012 (Ex.A9) was also issued to opposite party. Thus the complainant suffered enough mental agony & hardship. Hence the complaint is before the forum for adjudication.

10.     In view of the above, it is apparent on record that the postal authorities are held responsible for inordinate delay amounting to deficiency in service in sending the speed post article to the destination violating the stipulated norms of the postal department (vide Ex.B1 & B2 i.e., within 2 days) and further the complainant was made to suffer for the compensation for five long years. Moreover the opposite parties need to remember that the sec (3) of the CP Act is in addition to other acts and they cannot ignore this provision for the relief. Hence the complainant deserves suitable compensation from the opposite parties in the instant case.

11.     In the result, the compliant is allowed and the opposite parties (1 to 6) are jointly & severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards chances of losing a job for inordinate delay in the transit of speed post and further to pay Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony caused for 5 years of long struggle & hardship inclusive of the costs of the litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days.                      

         Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 29^th day of December, 2014.

                                             Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

                                        MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT (FAC)

NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:                       

1. Ex.A1 is the original copy of Refused, Returned Application-Envelop and Registered post with acknowledgment due receipt Dt: 24.08.2009 to 02.09.2009.
2. Ex.A2 is the original copy of Recruitment Advertisement Dt: 11.08.2009.
3. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Application Dt: 14.10.2009.
4. Ex.A4 is the original copy of Reply by Superintendent of Post Office Dt: 10.11.2009.
5. Ex.A5 is the photo copy of Complainant’s Appeal to Director General, Post Offices Dt: 24.12.2009.
6. Ex.A6 is the original copy of Reply by Director General/Chief Post Master General Dt: 10.03.2010.
7. Ex.A7 is the original copy of Reply by Chief Post Master General Hyderabad Dt: 19.03.2010.
8. Ex.A8 is the photo copy of Complainant’s Application to Director of Post office Dt: 21.04.2010.
9. Ex.A9 is the original copy of Demand Notice issued by complainant Dt: 14.01.2012.
10. Ex.A10 is the original copy of Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due Receipt Dt: 14.01.2012
11. Ex.A11 is the original copy of Postal Receipt.  
12. ment Due Card Dt: 14.01.2012
13. Envelop along with Acknowledgement Due Receipt Dt: 14.01.2012
14. Dt: 13.09.2011.
15. Dt: 24.08.2009.
16. Chemistry) Certificate Dt: 01.04.2009.
17. Chemistry) Marks Memo Dt: 10.09.2008

18. Ex.A18 is the photo copy of complainant’s PG Diploma (Clinical

Bio-Chemistry) Certificate Dt: 02.06.2005

19. Certificate Dt: 30.01.2002
20. Marks Memo Dt: 30.01.2002.
21. Layer) Certificate Dt: 15.06.2009.
22. Layer) Declaration Dt: 24.08.2009.

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

1. Ex.B1 is the original copy of Display of delivery norms letter Dt: 13.06.2013.
2. Ex.B2 is the attested copy of Extract from Citizen’s Charter of Delivery norms for Speed Post.

                                      Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

                              MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT(FAC)