Date of filing: 03.08.2016 Date of disposal: 20.03.2019
Complainant: Tanmay Jash, C/o. Lakshmi Kanta Jash, Village: Arui, Post Office: Saknara, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 421.
Opposite Party: 1. Saknara Post Office, represented by its Post Master, having its office at Saknara, PO: Saknara, PS: Madhabdihi, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 421.
2. Burdwan Head Post Office, represented by its Head Post Master, having its office at G. T. Road, Near Karzon Gate, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Proforma Opposite Party: 3. The Bio-Chemic Education Grant Commission, represented by its Controller, having its office at Bakshi Lane, Bowbazar, Krishnanagar, Nadia – 741 101. (EXPUNGED)
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate,Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: None (ex parte).
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Murari Mohan Kumar.
J U D G E M E N T
This is the application u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant – Tanmoy Jash against Ops on the allegation that due to their behavior and attitude he was unable to attend exam on 29.12.2015 and for that he prayed before the court an amount of Rs. 2, 00,000=00 as compensation from the Ops along with further Rs. 50,000=00 for his mental pain, agony and harassment along with Rs. 20,000=00 as litigation cost.
The case of the complainant is that he filled up the prescribed form as published by proforma OP-3 i.e. Biochemic Education Grant Commission on September 2015, for the post of Group-D and at that time he came to know that the written examination may be held in the last week of December, 2015 and accordingly he prepared himself for the written examination.
The complainant alleged that in the middle of December 2015 he further came to know from his friends who were also filled up form for the said examination that they had already received admit card from the Commission for examination and accordingly as he himself never received any admit card till 20.12.2015 then he went before the Post Master of Saknara Post Office within P.S. Madhabdihi and asked before him about his admit card and at that time the said Post Master as well as other men and agent were not able to give any satisfactory answer but the Post Master assured him by saying that when the said Post Office received any article in his name then the said article will be delivered without any delay.
The complainant further alleged that on 30.12.2015 he received an article from the Post Office of Saknara sent by OP -3 i.e., the Biochemic Education Grant Commission and after opening the envelope of the article the complainant found that the article contained the admit card of the written examination which was fixed on 29.12.2015 and accordingly complainant further alleged that the Ops delivered the article to him on 30.12.2015 when the examination was held on 29.12.2015 i.e. after one day of date of examination which is nothing but delay delivery and deficiency in service of the Ops and for that the complainant deprived from giving the examination.
The complainant further alleged that when he went before the OP-1 for enquiry about the postal article in his name then also the said OP did not able to give any satisfactory answer and due to deficiency in service of the Postal Department, the complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as pecuniary loss which compelled him to lodge the claim application.
The complainant also stated that due to non-delivery of the postal article within time he was not able to join in the written examination though he believes that if he would get chance of participating in the written examination he would get job and as such the conduct of Ops are amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and they are liable to compensate for that present application.
The cause of action of this present case arose on and from 29.12.2015 when the complainant went before the Post Master of Saknara Post Office and thereafter again alleged on 30.12.2015 when the said Post Office delivered the postal article to the complainant.
OP-2 i.e. Burdwan Head Post Office contested the present claim application by filing written version and the complainant has already applied before the Forum Court for expunging the name of Proforma OP i.e. the Biochemic Education Grant Commission and OP-1 i.e. Saknara Post Office received summon but never contested the claim application by filing written version.
The OP-2 denied all allegations as alleged by the complainant through written version and stated that the complainant has no bonafide cause for filing the present application as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP and as such the claim application is not maintainable accordingly to law.
The specific case of the OP-2 is that the present application does not came within the purview of Section 12 of the C. P. Act as the question of deficiency in service on the part of OP does not arise at all.
The OP-2 submits that they have not received any article in the name of the complainant till 29.12.2015, so the question of delivery of article before 29.12.2015 does not/cannot arise at all and further submits that on 30.12.2015, the Post Office received article in the name of the complainant in ordinary post and on that date the said article was delivered to the complainant. So the allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against both OP-1 and OP-2 does not arise at all and Ops are not liable for any compensation and prayed for rejection of the claim application.
On hearing for both sides, the present Forum Court has been pleased to frame the following issues.
- Whether the present claim application maintainable in its present Forum?
- Whether the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
To prove their case both parties have filed their evidence through affidavit.
Issue No. 1 :-
Regarding this issue let us consider the definition of consumer as the complainant claimed himself as a bonafide consumer to the Ops and also as the Ops stated that there is no relation in between themselves with the complainant as consumer. According to Section 2 (d) consumer means any person who (1) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;
Or
ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
Here in the instant case there is definitely a relation of consumer in between the consumer and the Ops as the complainant is the beneficiary of services other than who hires or avails of the services for a consideration which has been paid. So there is no dispute that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the Ops.
Further it appears that the complainant has filed the present claim application against the Ops, i.e. to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 00,000=00 as compensation along with other reliefs and the office of the OP-1 is at Saknara, PO: Saknara, PS: Madhabdihi, Dist: Burdwan and the office of the OP-2 is at G. T. Road, near Curzon Gate, PO:, PS: & Dist: Burdwan.
Therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the claim application has been filed within proper jurisdiction i.e. pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, this issue is disposed of.
Issue No. 2 :-
The complainant stated before the Forum Court through affidavit that in the month of September 2015 he came to know that the Biochemic Education Grant Commission has published a notice of employment and thereafter he filled up the prescribed form for the post of Group ‘D’ and sent the same before the Commission and thereafter he taken preparation for examination as he came tto know that written examination will be held in the last week of December 2015 and thereafter again he came to know from his friends that they have received their admit card from the Commission for their written examination and as such he went to the Post Office and make query about his admit card but at that time nobody gave him any satisfactory answer regarding his query but they assured him by saying that if they received any article in his name then they will deliver the same and thereafter on 30.12.2015 he received an article from OP-1, sent by the OP-3 and after opening, he found that the article contained his admit card of written examination and the date was fixed on 29.12.2015, i.e. after one day of date of examination.
OP-2 also stated through affidavit that they have got the said articles addressed to the complainant on 30.12.2015 only and after receiving they forthwith delivered the same to the complainant, so the delivery of the impugned article prior to the date was practically impossible.
Now only point for consideration whether there is any delay in service the article to the complainant for which the complainant is not able to attend the examination held on 29.12.2015 as it appears there is no dispute that the complainant has received call letter on 30.12.2015 through post office which was after one day of examination.
To prove the present point for consideration onus lies upon the complainant i.e. to show when the Post Office received the same in the name of the complainant and delivered the same. It is found from the envelope that the Post Office received the same on 30.12.2015, after 29.12.2015 and delivered the same on 30.12.2015. Then no responsibility lies upon Ops, as the complainant was restrained to attend the examination on 29.12.2015 inspite of taking proper preparation.
In the instant case the complainant is not able to produce any paper before the Forum Court to show when Ops received the same, i.e. before 30.12.2015, it is also the duty of the complainant to show when OP-3 released the same for delivery to the complainant and whether all the articles release by OP-3 on same date or not (because all others received their admit card prior to examination) and if it is found on same day then as to why the same was delivered to the complainant after one day of examination and if it is found on separate day then also the duty of the complainant to show about the actual cause on behalf of Ops for such behavior which is nothing but a behaviour of a step-mother.
It further appears that the complainant had ample opportunity to prove about the actual incidence before the Forum Court, for which he was failed to attend examination, but ultimately he failed to prove the same by producing proper documents, reason best known to him.
Under such circumstances it is clear that the complainant totally failed to prove the allegation against the Ops and as such is not liable to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 132/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP-2 without any cost and dismissed ex parte against the OP-1 without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
