Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is targeted against the Judgment and Order dated 12-09-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur in Complaint Case No. 11/2014 allowing the complaint with the directions as under :

“…. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Tupees Fifty thousand) only as compensation to the complainant by issuing an account payee cheque in his name within 30 days from the date of this order.

Direction is also given to the OP to deposit the said cheque to this Forum within the above mentioned period.

Out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only awarded in favour of the complaint, he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch within 7 days from the date of receipt of the cheque from the OP and produce the document in proof of such deposition, before this Forum within further period of 7 days from the date of deposition…..”

The brief facts of the complaint are that the Respondent/Complainant who was qualified in Part I examination for recruitment to the post of LDC in the Office of the District Judge, Malda, could not appear in the Part II examination for the said recruitment which was scheduled to be held on 05-01-2014, as the Admit Card for the said examination did not reach him in time.  The Respondent/Complainant, as a result, lost the opportunity of an appointment in Government service which, as alleged in the complaint, the Appellant/OP was responsible for.  

Heard the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP submitted that the authority for the Staff Recruitment Examination was the party responsible for the deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint.  The Respondent/Complainant, instead of making the said authority for conducting the examination a party to the complaint, made the sole Appellant/OP fully responsible for the alleged deficiency and filed the complaint accordingly before the Ld. District Forum.

As submitted further, the subject Admit Card was despatched through Ordinary Post in an envelope addressed to the Respondent/Complainant.  The Admit Card, as the Ld. Advocate continued, should have been despatched by the recruitment authority by Registered Post or by Speed Post as the ordinary post does not provide any guarantee for delivery of the letters in time.  Father’s name, which is usually verified in order to ascertain the identity of the person, was not written in the address of the Respondent/Complainant recorded on the body of the envelope.  There was, as the Ld. Advocate went on to submit, as many as 3 persons in the area having the same name of the Respondent/Complainant.  The subject envelope was handed over to one G.P. Member who was one of the said 3 persons having identical name.  There was, of course, a wrong delivery of the envelope, but the same was not intentional.  The envelope, so wrongly delivered, was dropped further by the wrong recipient on 09-01-2014 which was cleared and delivered to the Respondent/Complainant on the same day after ascertaining his actual location on interrogating the people of the locality. 

With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for allowing  the Appeal setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the envelope containing the Admit Card was handed over to a wrong person of  different address.  The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that Sec. 6 of the Indian Postal Act, as referred to under Paragraph XIV, page 6, of the complaint does not apply on the instant occasion since the said Act is an old one.  As submitted, the eligibility of the Respondent/ Complainant as Consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a latter Act, has been correctly elaborated in the impugned Judgment and Order. The impugned Judgment and Order also seems to be categorical while ascertaining the deficiency on the part of the Appellant/OP.

The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal affirming the impugned Judgment and Order.

Perused the papers on record.  It appears that Krishna Halder, the GP Member, to whom the subject envelope was delivered was a person living in Khidirpur, Haldarpara, whereas, the Respondent/Complainant was a person living in Khadimpur, Haldarpara which, as submitted, was distinctly written in the address recorded on the body of the envelope.

The subsequent delivery of the letter, on expiry of the scheduled date of examination, to the Respondent/Complainant on ascertaining the right addressee on local enquiry reveals that the same local enquiry which might have helped identify the right addressee, was not resorted to on earlier occasion resulting in the mis-delivery of the envelope containing the admit card to be delivered urgently to the addressee as the same was related to as important a matter as sitting for an examination for appointment to a Government service.. 

The facts and circumstances narrated above led us to arrive at a conclusion  that there was deficiency on the part of the Appellant/OP. 

In view of the findings as above, we feel that the impugned Judgment and Order does not deserve any intervention from this Commission.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands dismissed.  The impugned Judgment and Order is affirmed.  No order as to cost.