Date of Filing: 25.01.2016. Date of Final Order: 19.08.2016.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- .
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant applied for the post of Peon in Rampurhat College as advertisement in the Pratidin, daily newspaper on 14.10.10 where the college authority fixed the date of interview on 27.12.15 at College premises. Accordingly, the college authority has dispatched the interview letter to the different candidates including the petitioner on 17.12.2015 through registered post at Ramputhat Post Office –OP No.3. The complainant received the interview letter on 31.12.2015 and came to know that the interview date was on 27.12.2015 at Rampurhat College. Due to late delivery of the interview letter, he could not appear before the Interview Board on the date fixed i.e 27.12.2015. Due to deficiency of the Postal Department the petitioner could not get the said registered letter in due time. Had the petitioner got the interview letter in due time he would be a candidate for the said post and after securing the job his future life would be bright. For that reason the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the Postal Authority. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint against the Postal Authority.
The written version filed by the OP No.2, in brief, is that the OP has categorically denied the allegation of the complainant for non-delivery of interview letter on alleged date of 21.12.15. The R.L. No. RW-766313706IN booked on 17.12.15 from Rampurhat and from the delivery slip prepared by Gankar S.O. dated 21.12.2015 it of clear that Postman of Gankar S.O delivered the above mentioned article to Sanjoy Das the petitioner on 21.12.2015 and Sanjoy Das received the article by putting his signature on that day. The Web tracking Report also speaks the delivery of the article to the petitioner. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Point for Consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and law?
2. Whether the complainant has cause of action to file the present case.
3. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the definition of C.P. Act, 1986?
4. Whether the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6. To what other relief /reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Relating to the point whether the complaint is a consumer under the OP as per C. P. Act, the Ld. lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that for the instant postal delivery of interview letter to the complainant, the complainant has not paid any consideration money to the Postal Authority and for that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP as per C. P. Act.
In this regard from the documents filed by the complaint as well as the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant it is clear as well as an admitted fact that the complainant applied for appointment to the post of Peon of Rampurhat College and the College Authority issued interview letter to the complaint for the purpose and paid Rs.22/- towards postal charges for the same and to prove the same the complainant has filed a receipt showing payment of postage charge to the OP-Postal Authority by Rampurhat College.
Considering the said receipt towards postal charge to deliver the letter to the complainant it is clear that the complainant is a beneficiary and as such he is a consumer and he is entitled to file the case.
Accordingly, we can safely conclude that the complainant is a consumer and there is sufficient and there is sufficient cause of action to file this case and as such complainant.
Point Nos. 4,5&6.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint case is for compensation of Rs.2 lacs for non-delivery of admit card by Postal Authority.
The complainant’s case mainly is that the complaint could not attend interview for the post of Peon of Rampurhat College for delayed delivery of Admit Card by the Postal Authority where the Postal Authority has given certificate to that effect. Hence, the instant complaint case.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party’s case in brief, is that the complainant himself has received the concerned Admit card from the Postal Peon Deptt and for that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Postal Department.
To prove the case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and the relevant documents e.g the Admit Card, Postal receipt and postal certificate dt. 4.01.16.
From the above postal certificate dt. 4.1.16 it appears that Sub-postmaster Gankar has categorically certified with his seal and signature that regd. letter NO. RW-766313706IN has been delivered to Mr. Sanjay Das on 31.12.2015 from their office.
This certificate was issued on 04.01.2016. In this document the date “04.01.16” has been written at three places out of which the figure “6” in the place year “2016” has been overwritten as “6” though this over –writing has not been challenged by the OP.
In the written version filed by the OP-Postal Authority the plea of the OP regarding the date of delivery as 31.12.2015 instead of 21.12.2015 is that SPM Gankar inadvertently write the delivery date on 31.12.15 in place of 21.12.15.
Further, case of the OP-Postal Authority is that the complaint Sanjay Das received the article on 21.12.15 putting his signature on the delivery slip dt. 21.12.15 and taking the advantage of such mistake in delivery certificate the complainant has filed this case falsely to avail the chance of getting compensation.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that the OP has filed all the computerized documents where the complainant has filed the certificate signed by the SPM, Gankar.
In this case the OP has not challenged the impugned certificate issued by the post master. It has admitted the certificate and only plea is that same was inadvertently issued.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that the complainant himself has received the Admit card putting his signature on the list of delivery which has not been challenged.
Though the impugned signature of the complainant in the list of delivery dt. 21.12.15, on careful scrutiny it appears that the signature of the complainant in the complaint petition the style of signature of the letter “D” does not tally with the style of signing the letter “D” in the delivery list of the interview letter.
Be that as it may the same has not been categorically challenged by the complainant.
On the other hand the OP has not challenged the certificate of sub-postmaster as to delivery of the impugned interview letter on 31.12.15 as false and manufactured one. Rather, the OP has admitted that the said certificate was issued inadvertently as 31.12.15 instead of 21.12.15.
Further, the OP has not filed any documents as to list of delivery of letter on 31.12.15 showing that there was no such letter in the name of the complainant Sanjay Das.
But, the OP has filed several documents regarding delivery of letter which are all computerized documents including Track Delivery report excepting the list of delivery of letters on 21.12.15 containing the signatures of the recipients and respective report of the postal staff against delivery of respective events.
Regarding authenticity of the document filed by the complaint as well as in support of the complainant’s case the Ld. Lawyer for the complaint has advanced argument that the document which the complainant has filed, has come out from OP’s office. The document filed by the OP has come out from their custody. The complainant’s document is computerized document. But the document filed by OP is not computerized document.
He has argued that in the same list of 21.12.15 delivered other three letters on 23.12.15 where the rule is to deliver undelivered letter by preparing different slip and the same to be reported.
He has further argued that the list of letters by RMS dt. 19.12.15 there is signature with dt. 21.12.15 who signed it and where it gone without seal was sent to the Raghunathganj. But there is no indication where the letter reached at Raghhunathganj or Gankar. The OP is to explain but there is no such explanation. Actually, that document will not delivered on 21.12.15or 31.12.15. From the documents before this Forum there are three dates. All the three documents supplied by OP. They have not faced the dock. It is their duty to prove why they have mentioned three dates. The OP has not filed any evidence on affidavit.
On the other hand, the Ld. Lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that the list showing signature of recipients is manual. In this slip another item No. 27 showing not known on 23.12.15. Serially, items were delivered Complainant’s letter was delivered on 21.12.15. The articles were booked on 17.12.15 at Rampurhat. Computerized Tracking report shows delivered at Gankar on 21.12.15 is the solely reliable document for 3 months. He has advanced argument that the certificate issued by Postmaster is a bona-fide mistake. This tracking report cannot be ignored.
Regarding this tracking report the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that the document dt. 19.12.15 relating to the delivery of the impugned interview letter shows Raghunathganj P.O. where the track report shows destination is at Gankar P.O. and the argument of the Ld. lawyer for the complaint is which one is correct.
In this regard we find from the list of articles dt. 21.12.15 collecting the signature of the complainant showing delivery of the concerned letter by Gankar P.O.
The signature of the complainant in that document acknowledging receipt of the same has not been denied rather challenged by the complaint and for that there is no scope on the point of authenticity of this particular document acknowledging receipt of the same. The signature of the complaint acknowledging receipt being not challenged the difference of style of writing the word “D” cannot be the basis of disbelieving the signature of the complainant. In the complaint petition “D” has been written with italic style as “D” and the delivery list dt. 21.12.15 “D” has been written as typographical letter as “D” which is quite usual.
Considering the mere certificate without any basis means the acknowledgment receipt of the complainant on any other date or the date -31.12.15 as shown in the certificate this forum cannot ignore the entire evidence adduced by the OP including the signature of the complainant acknowledging receipt of the delivery of the article.
On the basis of above discussions as a whole we can safely conclude that the complainant has failed to prove his case and also we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Considering the entire discussions we find that all these points are disposed of against the complainant and considering the decision of all the points together we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 15/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
There is will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
