BEOFRE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 46 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 12.02.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 21.12.2015
Babita aged about 27 years son of Sh. Pardeep and daughter of Sh. Nathu Ram, resident of Ward No. 2 village Bamla, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Superintendent, Head Post Office, Bhiwani.
- The Branch Post Master, Bamla, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri K.C. Sehwal, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that she was pursuing her education qualification and had appeared in 10+2 exam through National Institute of Open Schooling during March 2014. The complainant alleged that her certificate of 10+2 exam was dispatched from Chandigarh by the office of the exam controller. The complainant alleged that she visited to the branch post office Bamla many times to collect her certificate but the branch post master intentionally denied to issue her letter containing the certificate. The complainant was instituted an RTI to the exam controller Chandigarh and the RTI authority had confirmed that a speed post letter bearing no. EP2882252401N pertaining to the mark sheet dispatched on 23.06.2014 at her address. After receipt of the RTI’s reply the complainant approached to the OP no. 1 vide letter dated 08.09.2014 and OP no. 1 instructed the OP no. 2 to issue the registered letter of complainant. The complainant alleged that the OP no. 2 was not taken any action and complainant again issued a reminder on 16.09.2014. After taking the serious action by OP no. 1 the OP no. 2 had issued the said registered letter to the complainant on 20.09.2014 and she had lost the opportunity to get the admission in JBT Course due to late delivery of speed post letter. The complainant issued legal notice to the Ops to compensate him but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, she had to suffer mental agony and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such she had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis delivery by post and no legal proceedings can be initiated against the department. It is submitted that a speed post article No. EP2882252401N addressed to one Sh. Pardeep was received at Bamla Branch Post Office on 25.06.2014 and the same could not be delivered to the addressee due to the insufficient address. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the representative for Ops placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative for the Ops.
6 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the postal article containing the mark sheet of 10+2 sent by National Institute of Open Schooling, Chandigarh by speed post was dispatched on 23.06.2014 to the complainant but the OP no. 2 delivered the same to the complainant on 20.09.2014, after a delay of 89 days. The Branch Post Master/OP no. 2 of the concerned post office intentionally delayed the delivery of article in question to the complainant. On behalf of the complainant a complaint was made against OP no. 2 to OP no. 1 vide Annexure C-2, Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4 by Pardeep son of Dharambir Singh on 08.09.2014, 16.09.2014 and 20.09.2014. He further submitted that due to delay in delivery of article the complainant lost opportunity for higher education. The counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgment:-
Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices NIT, Faridabad & others. Versus Mahabir Prasad & others 2013 (3)CLT 391.
7. The Authorized Representative for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the address of the complainant was incomplete on postal article in question, hence the same could not be delivered to the complainant which was received by the concerned post office on 25.06.2014. He further submitted that three postal articles related to the complainants were delivered to Satpal Singh teacher, who is got conducting filing of forms for the National Open School, Delhi, for the delivery and to find out the addresses of the articles. He further submitted that there is no intentional delay on the part of Ops. The representative of Ops referred Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
8. On our direction, the representative of Ops filed the affidavit of the concerned BPM Maman Ram and copy of inquiry report dated 21.07.2015. The concerned BPM in his affidavit has stated that the said postal articles containing the mark sheet of the complainants were given by him to Satpal Singh teacher, who is got conducting the exams of National Open School, Delhi for the delivery of the same to the concerned addresses and Satpal Singh teacher delivered the said articles to the complainant on 05.07.2014.
9. We have perused the reply to the complaint filed by the Ops, the date of delivery of postal articles has not been mentioned in their reply. We have also perused the inquiry report dated 21.07.2015 even in the said inquiry report, the date of delivery of the article is not mentioned. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the Ops regarding the exact date of delivery of postal articles in question to the complainant. The concerned BPM in his affidavit has alleged the date of delivery of article to the complainant as 05.07.2014, while the complainant alleged that the postal article was delivered to her on 20.09.2014. From the facts stated hereinabove, we have come to this conclusion that the concerned BPM has failed to discharge his duty properly and as per the directive of the department. The Ops have alleged that the address of the complainant was incomplete, but the complainant has not produced the relevant envelop containing the mark sheet to rebut the allegations of the Ops. The case law produced by the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we hold that there is delay in the delivery of the postal article in question to the complainant. It seems that the concerned BPM has not taken the effective steps to effect the delivery of the postal article in question to the complainant, immediately. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of her allegation of losing the opportunity to get admission in further course due to delay of delivery of postal article in question. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant against the Ops. The Ops are directed to pay Rs. 2500/- to the complainant out of which Rs. 500/- be recovered from the erring official. This order be complied with by the Ops within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 21.12.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
