Date of Filing: 20-04-2017 Date of Final Order: 06-12-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member
The Complainant has filed the present case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant appeared in a written examination on 05.02.2017 for the post of Executive Assistant at Alipurduar Zila Parishad. The Complainant passed the said written examination for which an Interview Call Letter has been dispatched through Speed Post from the D. M. office on 14.02.2017. The said letter reached to the Angarkata Post Office on 17.02.2017. The Complainant after completion of the interview came to know that he has been selected for the interview but till filing of this case the Complainant did not receive the said letter bearing Article No. EW486650275IN. The Complainant contacted several times at his nearest post office for the said letter but the post master assured that no such letter has been received by the post office though as per track report it reveals that the said article was lying in the custody of the O.P. No. 1 during the period of searching the article by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant made a complaint before Public grievance Cell of the Post Office and the Superintendent of the Post Office informed that the said article has been lost from the custody of the postal peon of the O.P. No.1. The Complainant became astonished as he had every possibility to get the said job but he could not appear before the interview board only for the negligent act of the postal department. The Complainant suffered huge monetary loss with huge mental pain and agonies and for which has filed the present case seeking redress and reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The O.Ps have appeared through Ld. Advocate for contesting the case. The O.Ps by filing W/V contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable before this Forum in its present form as well as in law. The O.P. make denial on the point of Consumer, jurisdiction etc.
The main contention of the O.Ps is that the alleged speed post article in question was booked at Alipurduar Court Post office in the name of Bapi Sarkar DPRDO, Alipurduar. The same article was received at A.K. Paradubi Post Office on 18.02.2017 from Nishiganj S.O. As per tracking report history the article was sent to A.K. Paradubi branch Office for delivery on 17.02.2017. The article was attempted for delivery on 20.02.2017 but not delivered due to absent of addressee. The said article was lost from the custody of GDSMD. By putting all above the O.Ps further pleaded that the Complainant is not entitled to get the amount as prayed for and this complaint liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
In the light of the contention of the Complainant, the following moot points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and perused the evidence on affidavit of the parties along with relevant documents. Perused also the written argument filed by the parties and heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Agents of the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
Admittedly, one article has been booked from DPRDO, Alipurduar in the name of the Complainant through Speed Post service of the opposite parties. The Complainant is the beneficiary of that service as such the Complainant is the Consumer as per C.P. Act 1986.
Point No. 2.
The Opposite Parties have their office in this District and the complaint value is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present dispute.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and sake of brevity.
It is the case of the Complainant that an emergency letter i.e. an interview call letter has not been delivered by the O.P. No. 1 in due time for which he lost an opportunity to get a job as he desired.
Evidently, Annexure 2 reveals that the alleged article has been booked on 14.02.2017 from Alipurduar Court and Nishiganj S.O. received the article on 17.02.2017 and on the same day the said article has been delivered to Angarkata Paradubi Branch Office.
Annexure-3 goes to show that the name of the Complainant has been enlisted in No.5 among 27 candidates who were selected for interview for recruitment of Executive Assistant. It also reveals that the date of interview was on 08.03.2017 and the concerned authority sent the call letter to the Complainant in due time.
Annexure 4 reveals that the Complainant made a complaint before SDI (P) Cooch Behar on 31.03.2017 seeking redress of his dispute.
Annexure 6 goes to show that the Supdt. of Post office, Cooch Behar Division informed the Complainant that the article in question has been lost from the custody of delivery postman.
It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant succeeded in a written examination then he selected for the said interview and he was in 5th position so he was every possibility to get the job but his desire has been totally frustrated due to negligent act and deficiency in service of the O.Ps.
It is the case of the O.Ps that the article in question was sent to Angarkata Paradubi B.O. on 17.02.2017 and the same was attempted for delivery on 20.02.2017 but not delivered due to absence of the addressee. Thereafter the article remained undelivered but the GDSMD kept the article under his custody which was lost subsequently. It is pertinent to mention that Citizen's Charter India Post had declared the time for speed post within same circle within one or two days. The resident of the Complainant where the speed post was to be delivered was just about 60-70 km from Alipurduar but the O.P. No.1 failed to deliver the article to the Complainant.
The plea as taken by the O.Ps as to the non-delivery of the alleged article is not sustainable in the eye of law as the O.Ps failed to adduce any single documents to show that the postal peon had make any attempt to deliver the article to the addressee or it has been returned back to the sender. The absence of any acceptable explanation as to why the article has not been delivered in due time, the postal department has no consistent case. Besides, the O.Ps admitted that the article subsequently lost from the custody of the postal peon which is nothing but a gross deficiency in service for which the Complainant deprived from appearing an interview and lost a chance of bright carrier.
The O.Ps admitted that if there any deficiency in service, the sender of the article shall be compensated as per the departmental rule but in no way the Complainant is entitled to get any compensation. In the case in hand the sender did not suffer any loss, the addressee i.e. the present Complainant has been suffered a lot by not getting the said article. Thus, this contention of the O.Ps has no weight in our considered view.
The O.Ps clearly stated that the compensation may only be allowed as per departmental rule i.e. as per Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act. So far as the provisions of the Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is concerned, it is limited to the liability against the employee as to the mis-delivery, wrong delivery, non-delivery of any parcel. So far as right of a consumer to be compensated due to deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the service provider, it is an independent and additional remedy as contemplated by Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is as under:
"The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force".
In this juncture we may rely the decision reported in (2009) 1 CPR (NC) 41 in the case "Superintendent of Post and Telegraph Vs. M.L. Gupta" where in it has been held that, it is very clear that there has been a default and gross negligence on the part of the postal authorities in not ensuring the delivery of the postal articles to the right addressee, which has caused pecuniary loss to the complainant. Hence, we feel that Provisions of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act would not be applicable in case of deficiency in services.
The present case is a clear case of default, gross negligence and non-delivery on the part of postal authorities without showing any satisfactory explanation for non-delivery the article which has caused mental agony and loss to the complainant. The postal authorities cannot shirk their liability under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
In this contest reliance has been placed upon a decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandicheri held in Ravi S/O Venkatesa Counter vs The Sub Post Master, Auroville ... on 5 February, 2015, held that “the Indian Post Office Act was enacted a century back when there were no Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Protection Act has been framed and enacted with an intention to make good the loss to the consumers which is a welfare legislation. Therefore, we are of the view that based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 alone we cannot hold that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant/appellant.”
In the light of the foregoing discussion and based on the above decisions of higher Forum and the materials to its entirety it is crystal clear that the O.Ps have deficiency in service and thus, the Complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation. Now it is to be considered that how much compensation the Complainant is entitled to get.
The word compensation has been given very wide connotation by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh which includes the loss suffered by any consumer as to the injustice done to him, emotional suffering, physical discomfort suffered by him at the hands of the OP. Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The Complainant deprived of getting a job as he desired on account of deficiency in service of the O.Ps particularly the O.P. No.1. At present the Complainant is not an unemployed youth and continuing his service as a primary school teacher. Thus, in our considered opinion an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.
It is also pertinent to mention that there is no consumer dispute between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 2. In our considered view the Complainant not entitled to get any relief against the O.P. No. 2.
Accordingly, the complaint succeeds but in part.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the present Case No. CC/49/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1&3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- and dismissed against the O.P. No. 2 without cost.
The O.P. No. 1&3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for their deficiency in service. The O.P. No. 1&3 may realize the aforesaid amount from the particular employee who is responsible for loss of the article.
The O.P. No. 1&3 are further directed to comply with the above mentioned order jointly and severally within 45 days failing of which the O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
