D.o.F:13/7/2010
D.o.O:10/3/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC 160/2010
Dated this, the 10th day of March 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Aruna.A S/o Kunhiraman
Badiadka House,Po Perdala : Complainant
(Adv.Subhash Bozz.V.M,Kasaragod)
1.Manoj E.R, S/o Raman,
Ekkeri House,Bajanthadka, Po.Perdala.
2.Ms. Indira, Sub Post Master,
Perdala Post Office. : Opposite parties
3.Sathyanarayanan.B,
Asst.Superintendent of Posts,
Kasaragod sub Division,Kasaragod.
(Ops 1 to 3 in person)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant Aruna is as follows:
Complainant was a postman in Perdala Post Office till 2009 on daily wage basis .His residence is well known to opposite parties. Complainant applied for the post of attender/peon in Chengala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd Chengala Kasaragod. The Bank fixed the date of written examination and interview on 5/6/10 and issued memo to the complainant under certificate of posting . Eventhough the memo reached at Perdala post office on or before 3/6/10 the same is served to the complainant only on 7/6/10. By the time written examination and interview was over. The house of the complainant situates just 400 meters away from the post office. The opposite parties willfully evaded the service due to personal vengeance. While he was working as postman the complainant was harassed to the maximum extent possible by 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is under the legal obligation to verify the delivery register of the post man each day. The complainant was constrained to leave the job as a postman due to harassment of 2nd &3rd opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties complainant lost his job opportunity and future prospectus. Therefore the complaint claiming a compensation ` 3,00,000/-.
2. For opposite parties Superintendent of Post offices Kasaragod filed version.
According to the version the complaint is not maintainable since Union of India is not made a party in the proceedings. On merits it is the case of the opposite parties that an ordinary letter addressed to Aruna.A,D/o Kunhiraman,Badiadka House,Po Perdala was received at Perdala Post office on 3/6/2010. The same was entrusted to Ist opposite party (GDSMD) . Eventhough 1st opposite party made immediate efforts to trace the addressee he could not succeed owing to the incomplete and erroneous address furnished in the article. The house number or name of the specific locality was not there. The area served by the Perdala Post office is known as Badiadka. It is a common practice in certain parts of Kasaragod district to assign locality names as house names. This practice is in vogue in Badiadka and there are many Badiadka houses under the delivery jurisdiction of Perdala post office. Further Aruna.A specified in the address portion was a female instead of a male. As such it was a difficult task to identify the addressee. Inspite of sincere efforts made from 3/6/2010 to 5/6/2010 by Ist opposite party who was working on adhoc basis from 1/1/10 the addressee could not be identified and 6/6/10 happened to be a Sunday and on 7/6/10 . Ist opposite party chanced to meet the complainant and made enquiries with him with a view to ascertain whether there was such an addressee in Perdala. The complainant on seeing the letter in question averred that the addressee specified in the letter was none other than himself and claimed the letter. Ist opposite party in good faith effected delivery in spite of the fact that the article was erroneously addressed since the gender was altered. The complainant further averred that it was by a mistake that the sender of article had furnished an erroneous address on the article and that he planned to lodge a complaint against the sender. Also 2nd opposite party had entrusted the article each day to the GDSMD until its final disposal as prescribed in the rules. The allegations against 3rd opposite party are absolutely baseless . The frustration and animosity that arose out of termination of the services of the complainant who had worked as GDSMD at Perdala post office purely on a temporary basis. When the vacancy was filled up on a regular basis his services were terminated. The averment that complainant had given up the job of GDSMD due to the harassment by 2nd & 3rd opposite party is a blatant lie uttered just to add spice to his false allegations. Against the above said background the fact that the complainant had applied for the post of GDSMD Perdala assumes significance of its own and complainant filed this vexatious complaint. Clause 84 of Post office Guide Part I has been made clear that Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by post. Further as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post office Act 1898 the Government is exempted from any liability for loss misdelivery or delay of or 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 Govt. and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability for any such loss, misdelivery , delay unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The claim of complainant is without any basis. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim as PW1 and Exts.A1 &A2 marked. Complainant cross examined by the authorized representative of opposite parties. Opposite parties 1&2 adduced evidence as DWs 1&2 and Exts.B1 marked through PW1. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The specific case of complainant is that he was working as a postman in the Perdala Post office till 2009 and during his working period 2nd opposite party harassed him to the maximum and they willfully evaded the service of the letter due to personal vengeance and she is under legal obligation to verify the delivery register of the post man each day.
5 During cross examination he admitted that his address is Aruna A. S/o Kunhiraman and the address shown in Ext.A2 is Aruna.A.$ D/o Kunhiraman. But he added that there are no other person by name Aruna in his locality and there are no other Kunhiramans also in his locality . He further deposed that he left the job as the postman voluntarily and he applied to appoint as a permanent postman. He denied the suggestion that since he has not considered for the post as permanent postman he filed the complaint falsely to take vengeance.
6. According to opposite parties the letter addressed to Aruna A D/o Kunhiraman Badiadka House Perdala Po reached the Perdala Post Office on 3/6/2010 and inspite of their best efforts they could deliver it to the complainant only on 7/6/2010 since 6/6/10 was happened to be a Sunday.
7. DW1 the post man appointed on temporary basis as GDSMD during evidence deposed that Post Master (2nd OP) will entrust the letter for delivery after sorting on the very same day it reaches the post office and nobody willfully delayed the entrustment of the said letter to him. Since he seen the address Aruna A , $ D/o Kunhiraman he enquired about a woman by name Aruna.A and he could not trace out such a lady till 5/4/10 and 6/6/10 was Sunday and therefore on 7/6/10 he enquired about it with the complainant whom he know formerly about the addressed woman. At that time complainant examined the letter and looking to the from address told that he is expecting such a letter and tear open the letter and told that it is for him. On the next day complainant instructed to endorse the date of delivery on Ext.A2 as 7/6/10. In cross examination DW1 admitted that there is only one Kunhiraman residing in Badiadka . He further stated that there is no endorsement to show that he enquired about the addressee from 3rd to 6th. He further added there are rules for endorsement of the non delivery on each day and he entrust all the undelivered letter with the post master and he was appointed as GDSMD from 2009 Nov to 2010 July and in Ext.B1 except gender the address is that of complainant and In Ext.A2 before writing D/o the letter ‘S’ is written and deleted and it is not done by him. He further stated that he was appointed as GDSMD. He also stated that he did not know when the letter was received in the Perdala Post office.
8. 2nd opposite party as DW2 has deposed that the letter addressed to Aruna A D/o Kunhiraman received in the post office on 3/6/2010 and she has to endorse non delivery remarks on every day and the complainant was not harassed while he was working in the Perdala post office as GDSMD. DW2 further stated that she did not know whether the complainant worked for 10 years in the Perdala post office and she is working there since 2 years and complainant worked there for some period with her. The evasive answers about the complainant that she did not know how long the complainant worked in the said post office etc. Further proves that there was some animosity between her and the complainant.
9 According to opposite parties the complainant was working as GDSMD(Gramin Dak Sevak Maid Deliverey in Perdala Post office from 16/3/09 to 30/8/09 purely on temporary basis and when the vacancy was filled up on a regular basis his service was terminated. Had it been so how and why Ist opposite party is appointed again as GDSMD purely on adhoc basis after terminating the service of complainant is not explained. Admittedly Ist opposite party is not appointed on regular basis. This fact itself is a pointer to the fact that during the service the 2nd opposite party was not in good terms with complainant and that is why his service was terminated and Ist opposite party was appointed again purely on adboc basis and not an regular basis.
10. Further 2nd opposite party is well aware about the name and falher’s name of the complainant. Since the complainant worked with her atleast a few months. Naturally whenever a letter addressed in the same name of former GDSMD worked in the very same post office is received, she ought to have made an enquiry with the complainant especially when in the address of the complainant after writing the letter ‘S’ in striken of and D/o is written in the second line as the name created a confusion even to the sender.
11. The further case of opposite parties is that the letter is received in the Perdala post office only on 3/6/10 and upto 5/6/10 they made enquiry about the addressee. But no endorsement of enquiry is seen made in Ext.A2 postal envelop. Further on a close scrutiny of the seal of Perdala Post office affixed on Ext.A2, it is seen that the letter is received in the post office on 31/5/2010 and not on 3/6/10 as contended by opposite parties 31/5/2010 is a Monday. So on 31/5/2010, 1/6/2010 and 2/610 it appears that they were not even seen Ext.A2. If this is not deficiency in service, then what else it is?
12 From the character, conduct of parties and also from the peculiar nature of this case it appears that there is some willful act or default on the part of opposite parties, in not delivering the letter to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties cannot take shelter U/S 6 of Indian Post Office Act since it nowhere protect the employees due to the delay in delivery caused due to the willful act or default.
13. The complainant has claimed a sum of ` 3,00,000/- by way of loss of future prospectus and mental agony. But it is not the case of the complainant that had he faced for the interview as per the call letter Ext.A1 he would have selected for the post. Even if he attended for the interview so there is only a chance. Therefore the claim for future prospectus is not tenable and he is entitled only for a reasonable compensation for losing his chance to appear for the interview.
Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay ` 30,000/- to the complainant together with a cost of ` 3000/-. Time for complainant is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which they will be further liable to pay interest @12% for ` 30,000/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Exts:
A1-call letter
A2-postal envelop
B1-Application form of PW1
PW1-Aruna.A
DW1-Manoj.E.R-Ist opposite party
DW2-K.B.Indira Rao- OP.NO.2.
Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
