IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD ,AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 138/2016.
Date of Filing : Date of Admission : Date of Disposal :
08.09.2016 16.09.2016 31.08.2017
Md. AziburRahaman,
S/o Late GolamMostafa,
Vill. Kazipara, P.O. Kamnagar,
P.S. Saktipur, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742405. …………………… Complainant.
1. Post Master of Kolan-Radhakantapur B.O.,
P.O. Kolan-Radhakantapur B.O.,
P.S. Ranitala, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742123.
2. Post Master of Berhampore H.O.,
P.O. + P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742101.
3. The Secretary/ T.I.C.,
Hossainnagar D.O. Sr. Madrasah (Fazil),
P.O. Kolan-Radhakantapur B.O.,
P.S. Ranitala, Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742123. …..……............ Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Complainant in Person ………………………………... for the Complainant
Sri SiddharthSankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate …….for the Opposite Party
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ……...… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee ………. Member
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty,Member.
Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the Complainant’s case may be summarized thus :-
The case stated in the complaint, in epitome, is that, as per the advertisement in a Daily named ‘SanbadPratidin’ dated 13.08.2016 the Complainant was applied for the post against deputation vacancy for the subject of English H./P.G under general category and has sent the said Application Form through the Speed Post on 17.08.2016 towards the Madrasah of Hossainnagar (Opposite Party No. 3). The last date for submitting the Application Form was fixed on 22.08.2016. According to the Track Report of the Indian Post the said Application was reached at Jangipore S.O. on 18.08.2016 and the said Application was sent towards the Kolan – Radhakantapur on the same day. The Post Man of the Opposite Party No. 1 severally went to the Madrasah of Hossainnagar but the Opposite Party No. 3 refused to receive the said Application.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
The Complainant alleged his grievances against the Opposite Parties that with connivances between all Opposite Parties the Application Form of the Complainant was intentionally refused instead of the common rules that in case of a speed Post the letter should be reached towards the addressee within 72 hours but in this case the Opposite Parties failed to do the same, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant finding no other alternative than to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 filed the Written Version denying the contention made by the Complainant in his complaint and stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action, barred by limitation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to deal the instant matter.
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 in gist, is that, on enquiry and Web Tracking Report it is found that the Speed Post Article Vide No. EW 378359205 IN was booked and the Opposite Party No. 2 has done and/or discharged their duties by sending the said Article towards the Opposite Party No. 1 on 18.08.2016 . The Post Man under the Opposite Party No. 1 went to the Opposite Party No. 3 on 19.08.2016 but one Mr. Rahaman did not accept the said Application. Further on 22.08.2016 the Post Man under the Opposite Party No. 1 again went to the Opposite Party No. 3 but the said Application was again refused to accept. At last on 24.08.2016 the Teacher – in – Charge of the Opposite Party No. 3 ultimately refused to accept the said Article for which the Opposite Party No. 1 sent the same to the Opposite Party No. 2 and returned to the Complainant on 26.08.2016.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
Thus, the Opposite Party no. 1 & 2 denied any deficiency and negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the instant case against these Opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
The Opposite Party No. 3 did not appear before the Forum but sent a letter towards the Forum in the Official Letter Head Pad which is treated as the Written Version on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 for the end of justice. Moreover none on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 is ever appeared before the Forum even at the time of hearing argument.
The Opposite Party No. 3 specifically stated that the advertisement for the deputation vacancy in English subject in general category was published on 13.08.2016 in the Daily named ‘Sanbad Pratidin’ and the last date for submission of the application was 22.08.2016. But it is found from the Track consignment of Indian Post that the said article was attempted to deliver by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 26.08.2016 which was after the expiry of the last date. So the Opposite Party No. 3 denied to accept the said Application .thus this Opposite Party No. 3 has no negligence and/or deficiency towards the Complainant in this regard.
Point for Determination
1. Whether the instant case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer ?
3. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.P?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that, whether the Opposite Parties or any of the Opposite Party is/are deficient and/or negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Complainant in person and the Ld. Lawyer for the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant has sent the an Application Form through the ‘Speed Post’ under the Indian Post on 17.08.2016 towards the Madrasah of Hossainnagar (Opposite Party No. 3) for thepost of English H./P.G under general category against deputation vacancy for whichthe last date for submitting the Application Form was fixed on 22.08.2016.
The record reveals that ultimately the fact remains that the Complainant has posed the said Application Form on 17.08.2016 through the ‘Speed Post’ but the same not reached within 22.08.2016 which was the last date for submission of all Applications and this fact was admitted by all parties to this case.
It is clearly evident from the record that the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 admitted the fact that undoubtedly the said article in issuewas reached to the Opposite Party No. 1 on the very next day on 18.08.2016 and there is no dispute regarding the same.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Now further the record shows that the Complainant alleged and also specifically stated at the time of hearing argument that the Postman/Delivery Man under the Opposite Party No. 1 went to the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) for delivery of the said article i.e. the said Application Form on 18.08.2016, next on 19.08.2016, further on 22.08.2016 but in every occasion the authorized person of the Opposite Party No. 3 did not accept rather refused to accept the said article and when the Postman or delivery Man went to the Opposite Party No. 3 lastly on 24.08.2016 the authorized person of Madrasah of Hossainnagar refused to accept the same on the ground that the submission of the Application Form had been expired.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 specifically submitted that the Postman/Delivery Man under the Opposite Party No. 1 went to the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) for delivery of the said article i.e. the said Application Form on 19.08.2016 and again on 22.08.2016, the authorized person on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 did not accept the said article and when lastly on 24.08.2016 the Postman or delivery Man of the Opposite Party No. 1 went to the Madrasah of Hossainnagar for delivery of the said article the same was refused to accept on the ground of expiry of last date for which the Opposite Party No. 1 returned back the article towards the Complainant on 26.08.2016.
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 drew our attention to the fact the Opposite Party No. 3neither appeared before the Forum nor had filed their submission on affidavit but only sent a letter towards the forum.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
Moreover, it is revealed from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant and also from the submission of the Complainant in person and the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 it is undoubtedly evident that the Postman or Delivery Man went to the Madrasah of Hossainnagar (Opposite Party No. 3) at least for twice on 19.08.2016 and on 22.08.2016 (which was the declared last date for submission of the Application form) for delivery of the said article. But the fact remains that the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) did not accept the same rather refused to accept the said article which is the lucid deficiency and/or negligence on part of the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) by depriving the Complainant from appearing for the Examination/Interview for the post of deputation vacancy in the subject of English in General category.
Thus in the instant case it is obviouslyproved that the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 has duly discharged their duties and liabilities towards the Complainant by properly took attempt to deliver the said article/Application letter to the actual addressee i.e. the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar).
But on the other handfrom the above discussion it is also crystal clear that the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) is strictly liable for acute deficiency and/or negligencein favour of the Complainant by refusing to accept the said article/Application letter from the Delivery Man under the Opposite Party No. 1 and for whichthe unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party No. 3 (Madrasah of Hossainnagar) is liable to compensate the Complainant in monitory termsfor the tentative financial loss and mental agony as because
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
if the Complainant could appear in the said examination/interview he might got the service in the said deputation vacancy but the Opposite Party No. 3 had snatched away the scope of the Complainant even to appear before the appropriate authority for present himself to get the service, if he could success to get the same.
Therefore in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has successfullyproved the case and isentitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest and on merit against the Opposite Party No. 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only but the same be and is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 without any cost.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the Complainant (as a consolidated amount of compensation for his tentative financial loss and actual mental agony) within one month from the date of this Order.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order, the default Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the State Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
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.
