O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Complainant Shri Amit Kumar on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay a compensation of Rupees 1,50,000/- on the grounds that after qualifying matriculation examination he applied for getting admission in a course and submitted his application through speed post on 10-04-2010 from Sub Post Office, Ladraur of District Hamirpur, H.P. to the ‘Secretary, H.P., Takniki Shiksha Board’ Dharamshala at Dari of District Kangra vide speed post NO. EE705629959 at 3:30 hours against payment of Rupees 25/-. The last date for receipt of such application was fixed till 16-04-2010. The date for the test was fixed on 16-05-2010. The said application was sent by him well within time, but the opposite parties failed to deliver the same upto 16-04-2010 and even upto 16-05-2010, whereas, the candidates who had applied and sent their applications even on 13-04-2010 were delivered in the said institution before 16-04-2010. Due to the negligence and default of the opposite parties in not delivering the application sent through speed post well in time, the complainant could not appear in the test, as a result of which he has suffered harassment, monetary loss, mental tension and the golden chance of appearing in the said course which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he has suffered a loss of Rupees 1,50,000/-.
2. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have disputed the case of the complainant and have set up the defense that the speed post article in question was delivered to the addressee i.e. Secretary, H.P., Takniki Shiksha Board’ Dari, on 13-04-2010 regarding which the complainant was duly informed on 25-06-2010 and as such the article in question was delivered promptly and without any delay on their part and as such the opposite parties have committed no deficiency in service.
3. At the request of the complainant, the Secretary, H.P. Takniki Education Board, Dharamshala, District Kangra, has been arrayed as opposite party No.3. In response to the notice the opposite party No.3 appeared and disputed the claim of the complainant and has set up the defense that the application form of the complainant was not received in its office and in absence of the same the complainant was not entitled to appear in the test in question. The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.3 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
4. Both the parties have led evidence.
5. Admittedly, the complainant submitted an application for seeking admission in the course run by the Himachal Pradesh Technical Education Board, Dharamsala, in various technical institutions through speed post on 10-04-2010 vide receipt Annexure C-6 on payment of Rupees 25/- from speed post office Ladraur to the Secretary, H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala, at Dari. In view of the information Annexure C-14 supplied by the opposite party No.1 on 25-06-2010 the speed post article was delivered to the addressee on 13-04-2010. On behalf of the opposite party No.3 one Shri Ramesh Chand, Senior Scale Stenographer of H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala came present before this Forum on 16-10-2014. This Forum has recorded his statement vide which he has confirmed that the speed post article in question or the application of the complainant was received in his office on 13-04-2010. The receipt of said speed post had been duly recorded at serial No. 31 and the same was received by Sant Ram Chauhan, Senior Assistant.
6. The complainant could not dispute or show any material on record to prove his claim that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have failed to deliver his application form sent through speed post upto 16-04-2010. To the contrary it stands proved that the speed post article in question had been delivered in the office of opposite party No.3 on 13-04-2010 and as such the complainant has miserably failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in delivering the speed post article promptly. It also stands proved that no delay was caused in the delivery of the speed post article, hence the complainant has failed to prove his case against opposite parties No.1 and 2.
7. The opposite party No.3 i.e. ‘H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board’ is a statutory authority. The complainant had originally filed the complaint against the opposite parties No.1 and 2. Neither the Secretary, H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala, Dari, had been impleaded as opposite party No.3 nor any relief was claimed against him. The complainant moved an application for impleading the Secretary, H.P. Technical Education Board, Dharamshala, as opposite party No.3. The said application was allowed by this Forum on 21-09-2012 and notice was issued to it. In response to the notice of the complaint the opposite party No.3 appeared and filed reply and has pleaded that the application form was not received by it. In view of the findings recorded above, it stands proved that the application form had been received by the opposite party No.3. Although, the complainant got the Secretary, H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board impleaded as opposite party No.3, but failed to get the complaint amended. In the complaint the complainant has neither claimed any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3 nor any relief has been claimed, hence no relief can be granted against opposite party No.3. Even otherwise, the complainant had not hired the services of opposite party No.3, for consideration and as such there exists no relationship between the consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party No.3 and as such the complaint against the opposite party No.3 filed on behalf of the complainant is not legally maintainable.
8. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and it has to be concluded that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.3. Hence, the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF;
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 23rd day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
