IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD ,AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 33/2017.
Date of Filing : Date of Admission : Date of Disposal :
15.03.2017 23.03.2017 22.11.2017
Sourav Biswas,
Vill. Gosaingram, P.O. Ghugridanga,
P.S. Sagardighi, Dist. Musrhidabad, Pin 742122. ……… Complainant.
- Post Master ,
Sagardighi Post Office, P.O. & P.S. Sagardighi,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742226.
- The Superintendent of Post,
Berhampore Head Post Office,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
- The Psot Master (Gr-III),
Circus Avenue (S.O.), Kolkata 700017. …..... Opposite Parties.
Complainant in Person ………………………………... for the Complainant
Sri Siddharth Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate …….for the Opposite Party
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
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, the Complainant sent an Application for service towards the address, “The Inspector General , Ftr Ha BSF , South Bengal , 2B Lord Sinha Road , Kolkata , West Bengal – 700071 , by ‘Speed Post’ on 16.12.2016 . But the said application/letter was delivered to the addressee on 04.01.2017 and due to reaching the said application after expiring of the prescribed last date the said application of the Complainant was cancelled.
The Complainant informed the matter to the concerned Post Offices but no satisfied answer was given to him what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant for which the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Party.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 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.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
The specific case of the Opposite Party No. 2 in terse, is that, the Complainant had booked an article on 16.12.2016 addressed to “The Inspector General , Ftr. Ha , BSF , South Bengal , 2B Lord Sinha Road , Kolkata” . on basis of application by the Complainant this Opposite Party enquired the matter and from web tracking report it is clear that the Speed Post Article No. EW 536356322 IN was sent by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Opposite Party No. 2 on the very same day of booking which was received by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 17.12.2016 and on the very same day the Opposite Party No. 2 sent the same to the NSH Kolkata Airport and from this NSH Kolkata Airport the said article in question was received by the Opposite Party No. 3 as mis–sent on 20.12.2016 but the Opposite Party No. 3 mis–placed the same instead of dispatching it to the proper address due to inadvertence at that end.
Thereafter subsequently the said Article was forwarded to the NSH Kolkata Airport on 02.01.2017 who dispatched the same to the Park Street HO on 03.01.2017 and from there the said article was attempted to deliver to the proper address on 04.01.2017 but was refused and ultimately was returned back to the sender by due process on 09.01.2017.
Thus, the Opposite Party no. 2 denied any deficiency and negligence in rendering service towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the instant case against this Opposite parties No. 2.
Despite service of the notice, neither the Opposite Party No. 1 (which is revealed from A/D returned) nor the Opposite Party No. 3 (which is evident from the Track Report filed) ever appeared before the Forum in person and/or through their authorized representative/Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version and so the instant case has been heard ex-parte against both the Opposite Party No. 1 and 3.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
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 ?
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 all 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. 2 and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant had booked an Article/letter through the ‘Speed Post’ under the Indian Post on 16.12.2016 to the addressee, addressed to “The Inspector General , Ftr. Ha , BSF , South Bengal , 2B Lord Sinha Road , Kolkata” .
The record reveals from the photocopies of documents filed by both parties and from the Written Version submitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had booked an Article on 16.12.2016 by Speed Post Article No. EW 536356322 IN (Article in question)
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
which was sent by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the Opposite Party No. 2 on the very same day of booking and the same was received by the Opposite Party No. 2 on the very next day on 17.12.2016 and on the very same day the Opposite Party No. 2 sent the said article in issue to the NSH Kolkata Airport and from this NSH Kolkata Airport the said article in question was received by the Opposite Party No. 3 as mis–sent on 20.12.2016. But the Opposite Party No. 3 mis–placed the said Article in issue instead of dispatching it to the proper address due to inadvertence at that end. Thereafter the said Article was forwarded to the NSH Kolkata Airport on 02.01.2017 who dispatched the same to the Park Street HO on 03.01.2017 and from there the said article was attempted to deliver to the proper address on 04.01.2017 but was refused and ultimately was returned back to the sender by due process on 09.01.2017. To prove the said version the Opposite Party No. 2 submitted the photocopies of the ‘Track Report’ which clearly evident the real fact in whole.
Thus it is clearly proved from the photocopies of the ‘Track Report’ and on admission of the Opposite Party no. 2 that the Complainant actually had booked an Article for sending the same through ‘Speed Post’ on 16.12.2016 but due to mis–placing the same by negligence on part of the Opposite Party No. 3.
The Complainant alleged that the said article was an application form for service which the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party no. 2 challenged at the time of hearing argument but it is manifestly revealed from the documents filed by Complainant, in original, that the said Article in issue is an application form sent by the Complainant towards the addressee for getting service with a Postal Order of Rs. 100/- only. So the allegation of the Complainant is clearly proved by such documents.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
So in the instant case it is clearly proved that though the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 has duly discharged their duties and liabilities towards the Complainant by sending the said Article from the Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 2 and from the Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No. 3. But the Opposite Party No. 3 is deficient and/or negligent to render their service properly towards the Complainant by mis-placing and/or lost of such Article and ultimately delivered the same after the date fixed as last date to receive the Application Form and for such delay in delivery of the said Article the Complainant was deprived from getting the scope or to lose the scope to appear before the appropriate authority for present himself to get the service, if he could success to get the same and such delay in delivery of that Article has been damaged the carrier of the Complainant.
The Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 referred a Citation of the Hon’ble National Commission (R.P. No. 1263 of 2005) wherein it was held that in case of any lost and/or damage of any Article sent by the ‘Speed Post’ under the India Post, the Complainant shall be entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- only from the Postal Dept. as per their Rules. But the fact of this instant case is that delay in delivery of the said Article. So the said Ruling referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties is not applicable with the instant case as because the said Ruling (R.P. No. 1263 of 2005) of the Hon’ble National Commission is related with the matter lost and/or damage of the Article and this instant case is related with the fact of delay in delivery of the Article for which the Complainant has lost in getting scope for appearing in an examination for service wherein due to such delay in delivery of the said Article (the Application form) the Complainant cannot be a candidature and failed to compete in the said service examination which tense to his carrier damage.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
Thus the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party No. 3 is undoubtly wholly liable for providing deficient and negligent service towards the Complainant by mis–placing his application letter and not sending the same to the proper addressee in the due time for which the Complainant has deprived from getting the scope to appear before the appropriate authority for getting the service for which he has been applied for and the Opposite Party no. 3 is only liable for delivering the said Article in such delay that the last date for reaching application has been expired and for such delay in delivery the Opposite Party No. 3 is only liable to pay the compensation in favour of the Complainant as prayed for.
Therefore in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequentially the points for determination 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 against the Opposite Party No. 1 without any cost and also allowed ex–parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 without any cost but further allowed ex–parte against the Opposite Party No. 3 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- only what is payable within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
That the Opposite Party Nos. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- only to the Complainant (as a consolidated amount of compensation for his tentative financial loss and actual mental agony and harassment) within one month from the date of this Order.
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. 100/- 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.
