C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/33
COMPLAINANT : Sri Amar Nath Bhadury,
S/0 Late Subhas Chandra Bhadury,
Pirtola, P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Post Master,
Nabadwip Head Post Office,
P.O. Nabadwip, P.S. Nabadwip,
Dist. Nadia
2) Superintendent of Post Offices,
Near Krishnagar Stadium,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
3) The Secretary,
Public Service Commission, West Bengal,
161 A, S.P. Mukherjee Lane, Kolkata – 26.
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 12th August, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a Homoeopathic doctor. It is his further case that as per advertisement No. 4/2010 at Ananda Bazar Patrika dtd. 22.05.10 he applied for the post of Homoeopathic Medical Officer before the P.S.C., West Bengal and sent an application form to the Secretary PSC, vide registration letter No. A 6435 dtd. 17.06.10 through Nabadwip Head Post Office. But in due time, he did not receive the admit card for the examination to be conducted by the PSC. So he enquired about this and learnt from PSC that the date of examination was fixed on 22.01.11. On 19.01.11 he submitted an application before the PSC intimating that he did not get his admit card till then. In reply the Section Officer, Sri S. Bhattacharya of PSC intimated him in writing that the relevant application was not received by him. As a result of this, the complainant did not sit for the examination which was held on 22.01.11 and this was caused due to extreme latches and negligence on the part of the OPs who deprived the complainant from having a government service without any fault on his part. This has caused loss and damage to him both mentally and monetary. So he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
A written version is filed on behalf of the OP No. 1 and 2, Post Offices. It is their contention that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. They have further stated that the applicant booked one R.L No. A6435 dtd. 17.06.05 at Nabadwip Head Post Office which was duly transmitted to Ranaghat RMS on the self same date. Thereafter, the said registered letter was duly delivered to the addressee by the delivery office, Kalighat Sub-post Office on 23.06.10. As the article was duly delivered to the addressee within the reasonable period on 23.06.10, so no question of negligence or latches on their part does arise and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation at all. Besides this, as per postal rule, on loss for damage or missing of registered letter available compensation is Rs. 100/-. But in the present case, as the article was duly delivered to the addressee in due time, so there is no scope to get any compensation as per postal rule. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Notice was duly served upon the OP No. 3, the Secretary of PSC, West Bengal, but he has not appeared in this case to contest the same.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties it is available on record that this complainant booked one registered letter from Nabadwip Head Post Office addressing to the Secretary, PSC on 17.06.10 vide No. A 6435. It is his specific allegation that in due time the letter was not received by the PSC authority as a result of which no admit card was issued in his favour and ultimately he failed to appear at the examination for recruitment of Homoeopathic Medical Officer by the PSC on 22.01.11. There is no denial on the side of the OPs regarding the booking of registered letter No. 6435 dtd. 17.06.10 by the complainant from Nabadwip Head Post Office. From the document filed by the OPs, it is available that the said registered letter was duly despatched by Nabadwip Head Post Office on 17.06.10 and the said registered letter was received by the PSC authority on 23.06.10 and it is also available that the said registered letter was delivered by Kalighat Post Office. The complainant’s specific allegation is that the letter was not at all received by the PSC authority and to that extent Section Officer, Sri S. Bhattacharya intimated him in writing on 19.01.11. The complainant has filed copy of the advertisement made in Ananda Bazar Patrika dtd. 22.05.10 from which it is available that the last date for receipt of application by the PSC for the Post of Homoeopathic Medical Officer was fixed as on 22.06.10. From the document filed by the OPs it is available that the said registered letter of the complainant was received by the PSC on 23.06.10, i.e., after the closing date of receipt of the application. So naturally the PSC authority did not recognize the receipt of that letter from the complainant. Now the question is whether there is any latches or negligence on the side of the OPs in delivering the letter to the PSC on 23.06.10 as alleged by the complainant. OPs have relied upon Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which speaks that, “The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
Ld. lawyer for the OPs has cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in this context vide revision petition No. 175 of 92 dtd. 15.04.93 in which also the Hon’ble National Commission has decided in favour of the Postal authority relying on this section 6 of the Indian Postal Act 1898. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has cited a ruling from II (1993) CPJ 213 NC. On a careful perusal of this ruling we find that the complainant cannot get any benefit in this ruling as there is no question of loss of the registered letter sent by the complainant. Rather we find that the registered letter sent by him on 17.06.10 was duly received by the PSC, West Bengal on 23.06.10. So relying on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as referred by the OPs and the provision of law under Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act, 1898 we are of the opinion that in this case there is no inordinate delay in delivering the letter by the OPs, nor we find any latches or negligence in delivering the letter by the OPs.
In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case and so he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/33 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
