BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No: 48/2007 Filed on 15..02..2007
Dated : 28..02..2009
Complainant: Radhakrishnan. K., Nandanam, Nagachery, Anad – P.O
Opposite parties:
Post Master General, G.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Post Office, Chullimanoor.
This O.P having been heard on 24..01..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant in this case, has alleged that a call letter in respect of a written test for selection to a panel of Tax Return Preparers of the Income Tax Department for which he had remitted Rs.100/- towards examination fee, that was sent on 18/11/2006 was delivered to him only on 29/12/2006 by Chullimanoor Post Office. By this delayed delivery of the hall ticket, it is alleged that he lost the opportunity to attend the examination held on 24/12/2006 and thereby forfeited the chance to get the job also and has thus been deprived of an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year.
2. The opposite parties filed version and additional version contending the allegation of the complainant, that the opposite parties in this case have intentionally delayed delivery of the call letter is not true. They contended that the averments of the complainant that the letter containing the hall permit was posted on 18/11/2006 is factually wrong. The call letter as revealed from the frank impression available on the wrapper of the envelope is seen to have actually been posted on 18/12/2006 and not on 18/11/2006 as alleged in the complaint.
3. The opposite parties further stated that the sender of the article had not taken sufficient care to post the article sufficiently in advance before the date of the test. The article was posted only on 18/12/2006 and the examination was on 24/12/2006. And also the opposite parties submitted that the article had been posted during the 3rd week of December 2006 when there were a large number of articles to be handled owing to an influx of Christmas and New year mails. Further they submitted that the complainant is unnecessarily magnifying the loss claiming compensation to the extent of 2 lakhs per year. And also they stated that as per the existing rule no compensation will be paid for the delayed delivery of ordinary articles for which officials of the department are not responsible. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1, the opposite parties cross examined him. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is willful negligent or default from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : The case of the complainant is that the call letter from the Income Tax Department was sent on 18/11/2006 and he has received the letter only on 29/12/2006 thereby he lost the chance to attend the examination held on 24/12/2006 and thereby lost the chance to get the job and thus loss of income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year. But the opposite parties alleges that the letter was actually posted on 18/12/2006 and not on 18/11/2006. They stated that thorough scrutiny of the magnified version of the franking impression shows that the month of posting printed in Roman letter in which third digit (I) appears to be very close to each other, giving the impression the date is 18.XI.06, but actually it was '18.XII.06'. We have also observed the Ext.P2 document we also come to the conclusion that the date is 18.XII.06. And at the time of cross examination the complainant also stated that 18/11/06 നാണോ 18/12/2006 നാണോ എന്ന് clearclear അല്ല . TheThe complainant has not adduced any evidence to clarify the date on which the letter was sent. And also the complainant has failed to prove that he has lost an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per year, if he got the job. In this case the complainant failed to establish that there is willful act or default from the side of opposite parties for the delay or damage. The disputed letter in this case was sent by ordinary post. As per the existing rule no compensation will be paid to the delayed delivery of ordinary articles for which officials of the department are not responsible. By Indian Post Office Act 1898 Chapter II Section (b), the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless, he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In this case the complainant has no case that the delay was caused fraudulently or due to willful act or default of the opposite parties.
Hence the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28th day of February, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.48/2007 APPENDIX
III
Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Radhakrishnan. K
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of Tax return preparers scheme call letter for the written examination for the selection of tax reurn preparers. P2 : Photocopy of post cover
P3 : Copy of notification of Govt. Of India – S.O.2039(6) In exercise of the power conferred by Sub Section(1) of Section 139B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (43 of 1961)
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No: 48/2007 Filed on 15..02..2007
Dated : 28..02..2009
Complainant: Radhakrishnan. K., Nandanam, Nagachery, Anad – P.O
Opposite parties:
Post Master General, G.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Post Office, Chullimanoor.
This O.P having been heard on 24..01..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant in this case, has alleged that a call letter in respect of a written test for selection to a panel of Tax Return Preparers of the Income Tax Department for which he had remitted Rs.100/- towards examination fee, that was sent on 18/11/2006 was delivered to him only on 29/12/2006 by Chullimanoor Post Office. By this delayed delivery of the hall ticket, it is alleged that he lost the opportunity to attend the examination held on 24/12/2006 and thereby forfeited the chance to get the job also and has thus been deprived of an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per year.
2. The opposite parties filed version and additional version contending the allegation of the complainant, that the opposite parties in this case have intentionally delayed delivery of the call letter is not true. They contended that the averments of the complainant that the letter containing the hall permit was posted on 18/11/2006 is factually wrong. The call letter as revealed from the frank impression available on the wrapper of the envelope is seen to have actually been posted on 18/12/2006 and not on 18/11/2006 as alleged in the complaint.
3. The opposite parties further stated that the sender of the article had not taken sufficient care to post the article sufficiently in advance before the date of the test. The article was posted only on 18/12/2006 and the examination was on 24/12/2006. And also the opposite parties submitted that the article had been posted during the 3rd week of December 2006 when there were a large number of articles to be handled owing to an influx of Christmas and New year mails. Further they submitted that the complainant is unnecessarily magnifying the loss claiming compensation to the extent of 2 lakhs per year. And also they stated that as per the existing rule no compensation will be paid for the delayed delivery of ordinary articles for which officials of the department are not responsible. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1, the opposite parties cross examined him. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is willful negligent or default from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : The case of the complainant is that the call letter from the Income Tax Department was sent on 18/11/2006 and he has received the letter only on 29/12/2006 thereby he lost the chance to attend the examination held on 24/12/2006 and thereby lost the chance to get the job and thus loss of income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year. But the opposite parties alleges that the letter was actually posted on 18/12/2006 and not on 18/11/2006. They stated that thorough scrutiny of the magnified version of the franking impression shows that the month of posting printed in Roman letter in which third digit (I) appears to be very close to each other, giving the impression the date is 18.XI.06, but actually it was '18.XII.06'. We have also observed the Ext.P2 document we also come to the conclusion that the date is 18.XII.06. And at the time of cross examination the complainant also stated that 18/11/06 നാണോ 18/12/2006 നാണോ എന്ന് clearclear അല്ല . TheThe complainant has not adduced any evidence to clarify the date on which the letter was sent. And also the complainant has failed to prove that he has lost an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per year, if he got the job. In this case the complainant failed to establish that there is willful act or default from the side of opposite parties for the delay or damage. The disputed letter in this case was sent by ordinary post. As per the existing rule no compensation will be paid to the delayed delivery of ordinary articles for which officials of the department are not responsible. By Indian Post Office Act 1898 Chapter II Section (b), the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless, he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In this case the complainant has no case that the delay was caused fraudulently or due to willful act or default of the opposite parties.
Hence the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28th day of February, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.48/2007 APPENDIX
III
Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Radhakrishnan. K
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of Tax return preparers scheme call letter for the written examination for the selection of tax reurn preparers. P2 : Photocopy of post cover
P3 : Copy of notification of Govt. Of India – S.O.2039(6) In exercise of the power conferred by Sub Section(1) of Section 139B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (43 of 1961)
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
