Haryana

Ambala

CC/302/2011

RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

K.C JAIN

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.    :  302 of 2011

Date of Institution       :  16.09.2011

            Date of Decision         :  06.05.2016

Rajbir Singh S/o Sh.Ishwar Singh R/o village Sultanpur P.O. Kakru, Tehsil & District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                                                                                  Versus

1.         Senior Superintendent of Post  Offices, Ambala.

2.         Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar.  

                                                                                                              ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. K.C. Jain, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Sobti, representative for Ops.

 

ORDER.

 

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  complainant applied for the post of Sanitary Inspector in Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar  and was called for interview for the said post, in the university committee Room No.1 to be held on 29.06.2011 under roll no.55034 vide letter bearing diary no.21527-EN-M/2011/4827-4866 dated 17.06.2011 but  the complainant could not attend/appear for the said interview as the call letter was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2011 i.e. after the date of interview.  It has been further contended by the complainant that  the call letter dated 17.06.2011 clearly reveals that it was posted on the same day  of its issue but it took an unreasonable long period of 15 days to reach its destination as it was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2011. Complainant has also contended that he passed Diploma of Sanitary Inspector from All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay in December 2004 in First Division through the Regional Centre, New Delhi and has served as a Sanitary Inspector on contract basis through outsourcing with the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh from 21.05.2007 to June 2009 and presently serving the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh as Sanitary Inspector from 01.07.2009 to onwards on contract basis. It has been further contended that due to gross negligence of the concerned Postal authorities i.e. Ops, complainant was deprived of taking his interview with the Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar and has lost his chances of being selected and appointed as a Sanitary Inspector. As such, the Ops are admittedly deficient in providing proper services to the complainant since the Ops were duty bound to take care and ensure that the said letter reaches to its destination and is delivered to the complainant within a reasonable time but Ops failed to discharge  its duty honestly & sincerely and thus the complainant has prayed that liquidated damages  of Rs.50,000/- may be awarded to him for the gross deficiency on the part of Ops in providing due services to the complainant and causing undue mental harassment, agony & embarrassment to him. 

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through their representative and filed written statement emphasizing  Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which says ‘The post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission  by Post and no legal proceedings can be initiated against the department’  and Clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part-I which says ‘there is no legal responsibility of the Post Office for any delay in transmission of an article’.  It has been further urged by the Ops that there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and the Ops. Further the letter was posted  by university through ordinary mail, and in case of ordinary mails, no record of movement from stage to stage in the course of journey from the office of posting  to the office of delivery is maintained and hence the reasons for delay, if any, cannot be ascertained and responsibility for the same cannot be fixed.  As such, the Ops have prayed that  there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 3.                    To prove his contention, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, representative of Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. S.K.Sharma, Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Ambala Division as Annexure RX alongwith documents as  Annexures R-1 & R-2 and closed their evidence.

4.                     We have heard the learned representative of the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of complainant is that he applied for the post of Sanitary Inspector with Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar. In response to his application, the university dispatched interview letter dated 17.06.2011 on the same day to the complainant wherein the date of interview was 29.06.2011 but the letter so sent by the university delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2011 i.e. after the date of interview. Thus counsel for complainant has argued that if the letter would have received to the complainant in time, then there were very much chances of selection of complainant as Sanitary Inspector as he is having diploma in the relevant trade as well experience.  To strengthen his case, counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar Vs. Pushpendra Singh reported in 2013(1) CLT Pg. 328 wherein it has been rendered that  ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d),21(b)-Postal Services-Applications  invited for the posts of Sub-Inspectors in Rajasthan Police-Application sent by the complainant through speed post on 28.12.2010 and incurred Rs.25 on sending the same-Application could not reach the destination till 31.12.2010 i.e. the last day for applying but on 04.01.2011-Envelope received back by the complainant on 12.01.2011 with remarks “time-barred”-complaint filed before District Forum-Allowed-Appeal against the order dismised by the State Commission-Hence, Revision Petition with delay of 71 days-Contention that there was agitation by Gujjars and thus it was beyond the control of opposite party to serve  the letter-Held, 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 post office is not supposed to play with the career of the citizens of the country-The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. If there is delay due to  some agitation, it is the duty of  state to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters-District Forum observed’ Section 6, not providing a windscreen  to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction, etc, on their part in discharge of their official duties.  Held we are in full agreement with the abovesaid observation. The willful default on the part of petition stands proved to the hilt”

                        On the other hand, Op’s representative  has argued that under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Under Clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part-I, the post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by Post and no legal proceedings can be initiated against the department and thus there is no responsibility of the Post Office for any delay in transmission of an article. Furter, the Op’s representative argued that university who sent the letter may be the consumer but the complainant is not the consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act and thus the present complaint is not maintainable.

5.                     After hearing the Ld. counsel for complainant and representative of Ops and going through the document Annexure C-1, it is  an admitted fact on record that the university dispatched letter to the complainant on 17.06.2011 calling him for interview for  the post of Sanitary Inspctor which was to be held on 29.06.2011 but the said letter was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2011 i.e after the date of interview. From further perusal of documents i.e. Diploma of Sanitary Inspector  possessed by complainant (Annexure C-2 & C-3) and Experience Certificates (Annexure C-4,C-5 & C-6), it is presumed that had the complainant received the interview letter in time, there were very much chances of complainant for his selection on the post of Sanitary Inspector in the university but the complainant has been deprived from taking this opportunity of his career which casts negligence & deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Further, on perusal of document Annexure R-1 i.e. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 so tendered by Ops, it does not give blanket immunity to the Ops for the loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post rather clearly speaks that in case of willful act or default by officers of Post office, they shall have no such exemption.  So, the argument put forth by the Ops does not find place especially in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Alwar (supra) since the essence of the present case is almost similar to the case referred above.   Further the complainant  is beneficiary of the services of OPs since the  university has called him for interview in due course of its business on his applying to university for the post of Sanitary Inspector with requisite fee & documents etc.  So,  we have no hesitation in holding that the  complainant is a consumer of Ops in the capacity of beneficiary. As such, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within  thirty days from the date of communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony and loss of his career.  
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation costs etc.

 

                                    Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:  06.05.2016                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                      Sd/-           

               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                                MEMBER