ORDER

19/04/2011

The Complainant filed the Complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Party. As per his Complaint he received a postal letter envelope on 16/03/2010 at 5:30 P.M. containing of call up letter cum Admit Card for recruitment test in the Indian Navy Service to be held on 17/03/2010 at 8:30 AM at No. 11 Airmen Selection Center V.I.P Borjahar, Gauhati Assam 981015. The Complainant further alleged that the said Postal envelope letter reached on 11/03/2010 in the Office of the Opp. Parties and delivered it to him only on 16/03/2010 after the gap of five days due to their lack of service. He further also alleged that the distance between Heirok post office and that house of the Complainant in just around 4 (four) Km. and that due to late delivery of the postal letter envelope by the Opp. Parties, he was/ is not in a position to appear the said recruitment test. Hence the present Case against the Opp. Parties for awarding a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh for deficiency in service, mental agony and cost of litigation.

The Opp. Parties filed parawise comment in connection with the present Case. It is admitted that their Office has delivered the said letter on 16/03/2010 but it is submitted that the letter mentioned in just an ordinary letter and used to travel from the booking Office as usual with all their such ordinary mails and being delivered as soon as it was received the delivery post office/ office of destination. It was added further that the name of the Complainant was not known as Shri. Kh. Lalit Singh which was his certificate name and the villagers of Heirok know him as Amubi Singh instead of Lalit Singh. It was further submitted that the envelope of the addressee was a self envelope  ie the Complainant wrote himself at the time of form submission and that the Complainant  did no mention/ write on the self envelope as call up or Admit Card and his Father name also. It was submitted that there was no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party and liable to be rejected.

The Opp. Parties further submit that as per standing rules No. 74 Clause (a) & (b), No. 84, No. 113 Clause 8 of the Post Office guide part-1 and Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the present Case is not maintainable.

Heard Shri. Purnachandra Meitei, Gen. Secy, Consumer Club,Manipur, on behalf of the Complainant and Shri. M. Kullachandra Singh, standing Counsel for Opp. Parties and perused the documents submitted in support of their Cases.

Shri Prunachand submits that the call letter reached in the Office of the Opp. Parties on 11/03/2010 and the same was delivered on 16/03/2010 at 5:30 pm as a result of which the Complainant was not in a position to attend his recruitment test which was to be held on 17/03/2010 at 8:30 AM at Gauhati. Shri Purnachandra further contended that the detaining of letter for about 5 days in the Office of the Opp. Parties is a clear deficiency of service. Hence to award compensation against the Opp. Parties is quite justified.

At the time of filling the Complaint, the Complainant enclosed the following documents.

        i) A Photostat copy call up letter cum Admit Card and an address of the Complainant as annexure-I

        ii) A Photostat letter of postmen for delivery of the same as annexure-II.

Shri M. Kulla Singh standing Counsel of the Opp. Parties, does not comment regarding the annexures of the Complainant but he strongly intended that the Branch Post Office Heirok tried to find out the name of the Complainant according to self envelope address but the villagers did not know the person named Kh. Lalit Singh. It was also submitted by the Counsel of the Opp. Parties that after taking extra effort to find the exact person, it was discovered that the exact name known to the villagers was Amubi Singh. In doing so, considerable time was taken ie about 5 days and as such the question of deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Parties as alleged did not write, in the circumstances as submitted above.

Further shri singh contended that the present Case is not maintainable as the Opp. Parties are protected by the Rule 74 Clause (a) (b), No-84, No.113 Clause 8. Of the Post Office Guide part – 1 and Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act and that no compensation is payable outside these Rules & Acts.

Act the time of filling the written version the Opp. Parties have filed the Photostat copies of the Rules and Act for reference as Annexure, B,C,D & E.

In support of this contention, he has drawn our attention by filling a Photostat copy of common Judgment passed by National Commission in Revision No. 15 of 1997, Revision Petition No. 1006 of 2001 and Revision Petition No. 1035 0f 2002 wherein it has been held that sec. 6 exempts Post Office from any liability for loss delivery , delay or damage of any Postal article in course of transmission by post, excepts to such extent as the liability may be under taken by the Govt. in the express form and similarly  an opinion of Post Office is exempted from any liability unless he has caused loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, fraudulently or  by his wit full act or default.

These facts are no disputed by the Complainant.

In the present Complaint case there was no allegations that the delay accured an account of fraudulent or wit full act of any particular Postal Employee.

In respect of detaining of envelope letter for 5 days in the Post Office, our attention has been drawn to Rule 74 Clause (a) & (b) of Post Office Guide part – 1 of which we reproduce as under.

Treatment of undeliverable articles 74. Prior of detention of undeliverable articles in Post office:- The following rules govern the treatment of undeliverable articles in Post Office:

          (a) Articles, the address of which are so illegible or incomplete as to render delivery impossible or whose wrappers get lost or detached, are sent at once to the Returned Letter Office for disposed, except when they are fully prepaid and the name and address of the sender appear on the outside when they are returned to the sender.

         (b) Articles, the addressees of which are not known or have left the station of address without intimating their fresh address to the Post office or are not found at the address given an articles are ordinary kept in deposit in the head, sub or branch post office to which they are addressed, for a period of seven days after all enquiries to find the addressee have proved unsuccessful after seven days, articles (including insured articles) which been clearly on the outside the names and addresses of the senders and on which no postage or other sum is due to be recovered are returned direct to senders, while other articles, are forwarded to the Returned letter office for disposal. If an articles has been redirected to the post office at which it is found to be undeliverable, it is not kept in depent, after it has been ascertained that the address cannot be found.

Rule 74(b) clearly speaks that the Articles, the addressees of which are not known or are not found at the address given an articles are ordinarily kept in deposit, head, sub or branch post office to which they are addressed for a period of seven days after all enquiries to the addressee have proved unsuccessful. Now, in this Case, we find that the Opp. Parties had delivered the said letter within the prescribed period under the rules and as such there is no question of deficiency of service as protected by this rule itself.

From the above discussion, this Forum hold that this Complaint Case filed by the Complainant has no force and accordingly dismissed.

Announced.