J U D G E M E N T

              Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :-  

              In epitome, the case stated in the Complaint, is that, the Complainant’s younger son is a Diploma Engineer and for doing advance education had prepared for taking admission in the B. Tech course for which he had applied to appear in the Zelet Examination, 2014, by depositing the fees amounting to Rs. 500/- only and finally submitted the said application form to the Opposite Party Courier service on 28.06.2014, vide Challan No. 230807, dated 28.06.2014 and the Opposite Party verbally assured the Complainant that the said application form would be reached to the concern office within 2 or 3 days. The date of the said Zelet examination was fixed on 20.07.2014 and the last date for depositing the application form was fixed on 05.07.2014.

               But till 115.07.2014 when the Complainant did not receive the Admit Card of the said Examination the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party Courier service on 18.07.2014 for asking them the reasons and then he was informed that the said Application Form was returned/refunded as the said Council did not receive the said Application Form. The Complainant then and there do the phone call to the said Council and they intimated the Complainant that they had received all the Application Forms till 07.07.2014 though the last date for submitting the Form was fixed till 05.07.2014, but the said Application Form might not be reached within 07.07.2014. The Complainant further contacted with the Opposite Party Courier service and at this time the Opposite Party informed him that due to some internal problem, actually deficiency of Delivery man in their office at Salt Lake all the letters and parcels could not be delivered within the schedule time. The Complainant asked for compensation for loss of his son’s academicals career for which his son was suffering from depression, but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

                Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, the case is bad for defect of parties as non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and the case is not maintainable.   

                The case, as a whole, stated by the Opposite Party in crisp, is that, the Opposite Party is only the In–Charge of a Branch Office and his duty is only to locally collect all letters and parcels and to send all those letters and parcels to their Regional/Zonal Office at Salt Lake and the Regional/Zonal office have to deliver all those to the concern persons/places. But the Complainant did not make another Opposite Party to that Regional/Zonal office for which the case became defective.

                 Thus, no question of deficiency of service does arise at all by the Opposite Party and he has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part towards the Complainant for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the instant case.

                                           Points for Determination

               1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

               2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

               3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                               Decision with Reasons

                All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

               The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Opposite Party is liable for not delivering the said Application Form to the appropriate Council for which the Complainant’s son suffer a lot for not getting the chance to appear in the Zelet Examination and by such failed to provide proper service to the Complainant or not.  

               We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Complainant in person and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party and also critically perused all the material documents on record.    

                On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party and the Complainant in person and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident and also admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had submitted an Application Form of the Zelet Examination for getting admission in the B. Tech. course to the Opposite Party Courier service on 28.06.2014 for delivering the same to the Zelet Council.

                It is revealed from the case record that the Complainant alleged that after getting the assurance to deliver the said Application Form within 2/3 day from date of depositing the same, the Opposite Party failed to do so and moreover the Opposite Party also never informed the Complainant that the said Application Form was returned to them after getting refused by the appropriate Council.

                On the other hand the Opposite Party by filing the Written Version just admitted the fact stated by the Complainant that the Complainant had deposited an Application Form but the fault is not to this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is only the In–Charge of a Branch Office and he is only liable to collect all letters and parcels and to send all those letters and parcels to their Regional/Zonal Office at Salt Lake and the Regional/Zonal office have to deliver all those to the concern persons/places.

                So, it is crystal clear and has proved from the case record that actually the Complainant deposited an Application Form to the Opposite Party on 28.06.2014  for delivering the same to the Zelet Council within 2/3 days. The last date for submitting the Application Form was fixed on 05.07.2014 but the fact remains that the Council actually received all the Application Form till 07.07.2014. But the said Application Form of the Complainant’s son actually reached before the said Zelet Council after 07.07.2014 where the Opposite Party assured the Complainant to deliver the same within 2/3 days i.e. within on or before at least 01.07.2014 (counting 2/3 days from 28.06.2014). Thus it is proved that the Opposite Party has miserably failed to deliver the said Application Form within due time for which the Complainant’s son suffered by depression for not getting the chance to appear to the admission test of B. Tech. course for which he took the preparation of his level best.

                Moreover the Opposite Party stated that the Complainant has not made their Regional/Zonal Office as another Opposite Party for which the instant case is liable to be dismissed against the Complainant. But fact remains that this particular case is filed and conducted by the Complainant in person and he is not the legal person. So this technical point is not possible to be known to the Complainant. The Complainant directly deposited the Application Form to the Opposite Party and at that time the Opposite Party had assured the Complainant to deliver the same within 2/3 days. At that time the Opposite Party never told to the Complainant that he is only the In-Charge of the Branch Office and their Regional Office is at Salt Lake and the Opposite Party locally collect all letters and parcels and to send all those letters and parcels to their Regional/Zonal Office at Salt Lake and the Regional/Zonal office have to deliver all those to the concern persons/places which he never stated or uttered in his Written version.

               Thus the Opposite Party is liable for not reaching the said Application Form within the time for which the Complainant’s son could not avail the scope to appear in the Zelet Examination and he has suffered from depression.

                 Moreover, it is also revealed that when the said Application Form returned to the Opposite Party he never informed the matter to the Complainant suo moto on their part but when the Complainant went to them for enquiring the reason as to why his son did not receive the Admit Card as the others had already received the same and whether the said Application Form was reached to the Council within the time or not at that time the Opposite Party informed the fact of the refusal of the said Application Form to the Complainant which is also the negligence on part of the Opposite Party towards the Complainant.

                So, it can be hold that the total liability to provide the service towards the Complainant is upon the Opposite Party, though he tried to shift the same to his Regional/Zonal Office and if so the Opposite Party have to disclose the same to the Complainant at the time when the Complainant first came to him for delivering the said Application Form which the Opposite Party never did.

               Thus, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Opposite Party is wholly liable to compensate the Complainant for loss and suffering of his son.

               Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and accordingly is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

              In short, the Complainant deserves success.

              In the result, we proceed to pass 

                                                                                         O R D E R 

               That the case be and the same is allowed on consent with cost of Rs. 3,000/- only payable by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

               That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- only as compensation for mental agony and depression to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

               In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the O.Ps within a period of one month from the date of this order, the concern Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the concern Opposite Party to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

               Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.