Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/113/2021

V.N. Sampath, S/o. Natesan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Inspector, Postal Department - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

29 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R   VENKATESAPERUMAL           :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 113 of 2021

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.24 of 2015 dated 30.07.2018 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Villupuram].

 

Monday, the  29^th day of May 2023

 

 

V.N. Sampath

S/o.Natesan

1/61, South Street

Vengaivaadi Post

Kallakurichi Taluk

Villupuram District -606 206.                       ..  Appellant/Complainant 

             

 

- Vs –

 

 

1. The Inspector

    Postal Department,

    Kallakurichi East Sub-Division,

    Kallakurichi -606 202.

 

2. The Director (General)

    Tamilnadu Postal Department

    Trichirapalli -1.                                      ..Respondents/

Opposite parties                                  

 

 

 For Appellant /Complainant               :  Party-in-person

 Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite parties: M/s.S.Chandrasekharan

 

 

This appeal came before us for final hearing on 13.02.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the appellant in person and the counsel for the opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

 

                This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram in C.C. No.24 of 2015, dismissing the complaint filed by the Appellant herein.

 

 

        2.  The case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is that he was regularly applying for a job with the opposite parties/postal department, since 2006.  On 15.12.2014 he has submitted an application seeking a job, for the 9^th time.  As on 09.03.2015 his age was 54 years.  The complainant has not passed 10^th standard.  He has registered his name in Employment Exchange on 21.07.1981.  His next renewal date was November 2016.  The opposite parties have continuously rejected his application, which had caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant issued a notice on 24.02.2015.  But no reply was sent by the opposite parties.  The complainant filed an appeal on 25.03.2015 with the 2^nd opposite party.  But there was no response even from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant’s name was on the 37^th place in the waiting list of the opposite parties department and on the 2^nd place for the post of Driver.  Inspite of the same, his name was not considered by the opposite parties.  Hence, alleging deficiency of service, the complaint has been filed for the following directions to the opposite parties:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony;  and
2. To pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

 

                3.  Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties have filed a counter stating that the dispute raised by the complainant relates to service matter.  Hence, the complainant ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal if he has any grievance with regard to his employment.  Hence, the Consumer Commission is not an appropriate forum for his claim.  Further, the complainant is not having any merit in his case.  The selection of a candidate for the post of GDS Mail Deliverer, Moongilthuraipattu SO is to be made only under due process of law by notifying the vacancy.  In fact, the District Employment Office, Villupuram was requested to send a list of suitable candidates.  The list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office, Villupuram was received by the opposite parties on 12.12.2014.  Since in the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office the name of the complainant N.Sampath was referred, he was addressed by post with a copy of the notification on the very same day.  On receipt of the said communication, an application under registered letter was received from the complainant by the opposite parties on 16.12.2014.  All the applications received from the open candidates and the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office were opened on 11.04.2015, in the presence of an Associate Officer, Sri.T.Harikrishnan, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, O/o. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vridhachalam Division.   A list of top 5 meritorious candidates was prepared and they were called for certificate verification and the verification of original certificates was made on 23.04.2015.  Smt.G.Abiramy, the top meritorious candidate was selected to the post.  The complainant N.Sampath had failed to enclose his mark card along with his application but he mentioned in the application that he has failed in SSLC.  Hence, his application was not considered.  On 25.02.2015, a letter seeking placement in the said post was received from the complainant.  As an intimation regarding non-selection of Employment Exchange sponsored candidates was submitted to District Employment Office, Villupuram, no separate reply was given to the complainant N.Sampath.  Since the complainant was not a meritorious candidate he was not selected and he could not get the employment.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 

 

 

                4.  In order to prove the case, both the parties have filed their proof affidavits and on the side of the complainant, 12 documents have been marked as Exhibits A1 to A12 and 6 documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties and marked as Exhibits B1 to B6.

 

 

                5. The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on record had come to a conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum and thus dismissed the complaint.     Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

 

                6.  Keeping in mind the submissions made by the appellant/complainant in person and the counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties, we perused the entire material available on records. 

 

             7.  A very reading of the complaint itself would show that the issue raised by the complainant relates to service matter.  There is no relationship between the service provider and the consumer, in this case.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  Although this sort of complaints have to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs,  since it seems that because of misunderstanding of law and ignorance of procedure, the appellant ended up in filing the consumer proceedings and hence, we refrained from doing so.  

                 

                8.   In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order dated 30.07.2018 in C.C. No.24 of 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                  R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/May/2023