Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

                    Complainant Jyotsna Neetam has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not delivering the Speed Post article to the addressee in time and praying therein to refund a sum of Rs. 47.20p which has been paid to the postal department and pay a sum of Rs. 750/- towards the cost of Demand Draft and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 10,00000/- for depriving her to appear in the examination and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards the cost of litigation.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had sent her application to the Registrar, Judicial for the post of District and Sessions Judge on 14.11.2022 through Speed Post from Nuwapara Post Office vide Speed Post Article No. EO6643380577IN and a sum of Rs. 47.20p was paid as the Speed Post Article Charge to OP No. 1. After 6 days on 20.11.2022, the complainant enquired over phone from the office of the Registrar, High Court, Odisha, Cuttack regarding the delivery of the Speed Post and came to her knowledge that no such speed post article has been delivered there. She personally proceeded to the Office of OP No. 1 to enquire regarding the fate of the speed post article. But, the OP No. 1 refused to give any clarification regarding delivery of the speed post article. Being harassed, she approached to OP No. 2. But, there was no satisfactory reply from OP No. 2. As the speed post article was not delivered containing the application for the post of District and Sessions Judge along with the required documents, she was devoid from being allowed to appear in the examination because of the negligence by the Opposite Party. Therefore, she has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.

2.           After receipt of notice, the OP No. 2 filed the written statement on behalf of the Opposite Parties. In his written statement, the OP No. 2 stated that the speed post article in question was booked on 14.11.2022 through speed post and one receipt was granted to the complainant as proof of booking of the speed post article. On 15.11.2022, speed post article No. EO6643380577IN was delivered to the office of the BDO, Nuapada erroneously along with 97 numbers of speed post article meant for the same addressee. The said speed post article was returned back by the office of BDO, Nuapada on 22.11.2022 after noon. On the next day, the said article was sent to Bolangir ICH for further dispatched to the destination office i.e. Chandini Chowk Head Office for delivery to the addressee and the said article was delivered on 28.11.2022. It is further stated that as per the internal instruction of their department, in the event of delay in delivery of speed post articles, the book charges paid by the customer will be refunded as compensation. So, the complainant is only entitled to get back the booking charges only.

3.           Since the Opposite Parties admit the delivery of the speed post ¸the only question relating to the allegation is whether the delay caused is willful in nature or was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It is admitted by the OP No. 2 in the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs that the speed post article in question was wrongly delivered to the BDO, Nuwapara on 15.11.2022. It is a clear act of negligence on the part of the postal authorities as they have very carelessly delivered the envelope without examining the name and address of the addressee. Besides while updating their system, it must have come to their notice that the letter has been delivered to the wrong addressee and immediately, they could have collected from the person to whom it has been delivered. But in the instant case before delivering the letter, the name and address on the envelope has been checked properly, while updating the system for online tracking, the system has not been properly updated and primarily at the time of sorting the letters, it has been done in careless and haphazard manner. So, carelessness has completely attributed in all the three stages i.e. sorting of the letter, delivery without proper examination and while updating the computer system for online tracking. So, it is an act of willful negligence and the OP No. 1 is squarely responsible for causing deficiency in service to the complainant.

4.           Now comes to the question to what relief the complainant is entitled?

    The complainant was sending her application for the post of District and Sessions Judge. As her application did not reach the destination, in time, she was devoid for appearing the said examination and lost one chance because of the willful negligence of the OP No. 1. So, she is entitled to compensate proportionately for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and dismissed against the other OP No. 2,3 and 4. The OP No. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 47.20p. which has been paid as postal charges by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) towards the loss and harassment sustained by the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in rendering service and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- (Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.