BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.417 of 2014
Date of Instt. 25.11.2014
Date of Decision :03.06.2015
Ragini Singh wife of Alok Singh R/o SMQ 699/8, Vayu Vihar, Adampur Doaba. Jalandhar-1.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Post Master, Adampur Doaba.
2. Post Master, GPO, District Jalandhar.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, GPO, Jalandhar-144001.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.GPS Rana Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is resident of above said address. The complainant belongs to a middle class family and was looking forward towards her job in a government department to make a better future prospects for herself and her family. On 10.7.2014 the complainant had posted important documents in response to a job vacancy advertised by the government of UP for the post of government teachers for which last date for receiving application was 21.7.2014. The mode of speed post was opted to secure timely and safe delivery. There were four articles in total carrying important educational qualification documents which were sent through the speed post, the details of which are as follows:-
i)EP271141024IN to Principal DIET Ghazipur, UP-233001,
ii)EP271141038IN to Principal DIET Mirzapur, UP 231001,
iii)EP231141041IN to Principal DIET Chandauli UP-232104 and
iv)EP271141055IN to Principal DIET Azamgarh, UP-276001
2. None of the four articles reached the destination on time. Two of articles, EP271141024IN to Principal DIET Ghazipur, UP-233001 and EP271141055IN to Principal DIET Azamgarh, UP-276001 to the utter surprise and shock of the complainant had been returned back to the complainant undelivered as the same were delivered to the destination/addressee after the last date for receiving these documents and hence not accepted and so the same were sent back to the complainant. However the fate of the other two articles is still not known till date, as admitted in the reply to the legal notice by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Jalandhar Division himself, opposite party No.2. The complainant and her husband had put strenuous enquiries to locate and find out the fate of the missing articles for non-delivery on time but failed. Now efforts to locate the missing articles which till date have not reached back also of no use and the fact that fate of those articles are not being divulged by the postal authority for the reason best known to opposite parties. In the reply to the legal notice the postal authority very lightly and easily reply by stating that the article No.EP271141038IN to Principal DIET Mirzapur, UP-231001 "Varanassi Cantt NSH received and opened the bag on 21.7.2014 after 10 days. They further dispatched the item to Sakaldiha Bazar SO on 22.7.2014. No further status is available on net and that a complaint No.#111008-03467 is already lodged on net but no response received till date". EP271141038IN to Principal DIET Mirzapur, UP-231001 "The bag containing the article was received at Allahabad NSH on 13.7.2014 but no further status is available". The entire career of complainant has been ruined due to the negligent, careless and deficient service of the opposite parties and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have played havoc with the professional career of complainant which can not be compensated in terms of money. Through these documents in these four articles the complainant was to get the necessary correction/verification done for her academic qualification testimonials which could not be done due to the unprofessional and irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties. The complainant has lost valuable opportunity which would have tremendous adverse impact on her future career and upliftment prospects. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply admitting that the articles were booked on 10.7.2014 at Adampur Doaba, Sub Office. It is also admitted that four articles as detailed were booked. They pleaded that the track record of the speed post is available on the internet and it is known to the complainant. Detail as under:-
a) Article No.EP271141024IN was delivered at Daraganj, UP on 25.7.2014. The item was booked on 10.7.2014 and on the same day it was sent by the bag containing and the said article was dispatched to Delhi. There is a delay on the other post office and not at Jalandhar. They have not been made a party.
b) Article No.EP271141038IN, as per status bag containing the article was sent forwarded on the same day and was received at Allahabad NSH on 13.7.2014 but no further status is available. They are making enquiries and their office made a telephone enquiry on the phone No.09919477312 APM delay branch on 25.8.2014. It was stated that article has not been received by Mirzapur H.O for delivery. Their office is not at fault.
c) Article No.EP231141041IN, the article was sent forward on the same day dated 10.7.2014 and bag No.EBP0003367090 New Delhi office received it on 11.7.2014. The New Delhi office sent forwarded on the same day. There is a delay in Varanassi Cantt NSH. New Delhi office received and dispatched the same on 11.7.2014 to Varanassi Cantt NSH through O-16/IN but Varanassi Cantt NSH received and opened the bag on 21.7.2014 after 10 days. They further dispatched the items to Sakaldiha Bazaar S.O on 22.7.2014. No further status is available on internet. Complaint No.111008-03467 is already lodged on internet on telephonic enquiry with Sub Post Master Sakaldiha Bazaar S.O over phone No.05412246236 on 25.8.2014. It was told to their office that the article was not received by them in computer and have been delivered manually. Their office is not at fault. The negligent officer has not been made party.
d) Article No.EP271141055IN, the article was received in this office on 10.7.2014 and was dispatched on the same day in bag No.EBP0003367090 to Delhi. IT was dispatched from Delhi 11.7.2014 to Varanassi Cantt NSH. Varanassi Cantt NSH opened the bag on 21.7.2014. They further dispatched the article to ICH Mau. The item was delivered on 1.8.2014 and their office is not at fault. Other offices has not been made party.
4. They further pleaded that the alleged applications are not the job guarantee. It is further stated that with the alleged applications only photocopies of the documents were being sent and any important document was not sent. There is alleged negligence on the part of the Uttar Pradesh Offices. In addition it is stated that as per terms and conditions and circular of their speed post, the complainant is entitled to recover maximum double amount of the charges paid by him for posting. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
5. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1, Ex.OP2, Ex.OP2A, Ex.OP3, Ex.OP3A, Ex.OP4 and closed evidence.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The complainant sent certain documents in response to job vacancy through opposite party No.1 through speed post. Admittedly, the articles sent through speed post were delivered within time. From the contents of the written reply filed by the opposite parties, the delay or negligence on the part of the opposite parties or their other offices is evident. In para 8 of the written reply it is stated that there is alleged negligence on the parties of the Uttar Pradesh offices and answering opposite parties have acted efficiently in dealing with the matter at all stages. Whether the delay and negligence was on the part of the post office at Allahabad or at some other place, the fact remains that the post office authorities were negligent and deficient in service in delivering the articles sent through speed post in time. The opposite parties have not explained the delay satisfactorily. They have simply shifted the blame to the postal authorities of Uttar Pradesh. So from the above narrated facts and contents of the written reply, the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties stand proved. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that as per circular of the postal authorities opposite parties are only entitled to pay double the speed post charges or Rs.1000/- which ever is less. The departmental circular can not be over ride the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh 2013(1) CPC 312, in some what similar circumstances the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"Let us come to the merits of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it was beyond the control of the opposite party to serve the letter upon the complainant. It is explained that there was agitation by the gujjars. He has placed news clips in order to support his case. He argued that under the circumstances, no negligence can be attributed to the respondent.
This is not a coherent argument. A person has to spend Rs.25/- in the hope that his application would reach the destination in time. Otherwise, the application could be sent through ordinary post, it would cost him Rs.5/- only. It is the duty of the State to see to it that the letter reaches within 24 hours or at the most within 48 hours from the date of its receipt. It is no part of the duty of subject to anticipate that the letter would not reach the destination due to agitation. The postal department should under all the probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that the letters reach the destination in time.
The second submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 comes to the rescue of the respondent. He commented that there lies a rub for the consumer fora not to speak their mind in this context as they are not armed with this power.
This arguments, too, deserves no consideration. The post office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizens of the country. The letter sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to some agitation, it is the duty of the State to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters. The District Forum was pleased to observe:-
"Section 6 not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc on their part of discharge of their official duties-Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on their party".
We are in full agreement with the abovesaid observation. The willful default on the part of the petitioner stand proved to the hilt. The petitioner's assumptions are all wet".
9. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case.
10. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the complainant and further Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
03.06.2015 Member Member President
