Tripura

StateCommission

A/17/2022

The Chief Post Master General, NE Circle - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Sampa Chowdhury (Sarkar) - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B. Majumder, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. P.L. Debbarma

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala: West Tripura

 

Case No. A. 17 of 2022

 

1. The Chief Post Master General,

NE Circle, Shillong - 793001.

 

2. The Superintendents of Post Offices,

Agartala Division, Agartala - 799001.

 

3. The Post Master,

R.K. Pur Post Office, Udaipur,

District - Gomati, Tripura.

.… … … … Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Vs

 

 

1. Smt. Sampa Chowdhury (Sarkar)

Wife of Sri Prasenjit Sarkar,

Resident of East Bank of Jagannath Dighi, Udaipur,

P.S. R.K. Pur, District - Gomati, Tripura.

                                                … … … … Respondent/Complainant

 

 

Before

 

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh

President

State Commission

 

Dr Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member

State Commission

 

 

 

Present:

For the Appellants:                                            Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

For the Respondent:                                          Mr. D.K. Daschaudhury, Advocate

Date of Hearing &Delivery of Judgment:       20.03.2023.

Whether fit for reporting:                                 No                                                     

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

 

Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.K. Daschaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

In terms of the order dated 27.02.2023, passed by this Commission, the Chief Post Master General, NE Circle, Shillong has appeared today before this Commission.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, the Chief Post Master General, NE Circle, Shillong and two others(here-in-after referred to as the opposite parties-Postal Department) against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gomati District, Udaipur in connection with Case No.C.C.01 of 2021.
3. The respondent herein, i.e. the original complainant had filed a complaint case before the learned District Commission expressing serious grievance for not addressing her claim by the opposite parties, the appellants herein and alleged that the appellants-Postal Department was deficient in rendering service towards the complainant and prayed for directing the Postal Department, the appellants herein to pay Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh) as compensation to the complainant, the respondent herein.   
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant, the respondent herein, on 25.03.2020 deposited a withdrawal slip for withdrawing a handsome amount from her account with the R.K. Pur Post Office, i.e. the appellant no.3 herein, for urgent treatment of her ailing father, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital at that time. But, the appellant no.3 did not disburse the amount despite her repeated requests, rather the staff of appellant no.3 kept her passbook under their custody. It is further stated in the complaint that on the next day, the complainant again visited the Office of the appellant no.3 and tried to convince them about the urgency of the money, but the officials of appellant no.3 did not pay any heed to her claims/requests, rather they misbehaved with her.
5. Thereafter, the complainant approached the DM & Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur and the SP, Gomati District, Udaipur seeking redress, but except an enquiry proceeding, her grievance was not properly addressed. However, during the course of the enquiry proceedings, two employees of the office of the appellant no.3 admitted their guilt. Meanwhile, on 30.03.2020 her father expired.
6. It is further stated in the complaint that the matter was brought to the notice of the appellant nos.1 and 2 by the complainant. Having received the information, the appellant no.2 made a detailed inquiry and found that the allegation of the complainant as true, and accordingly, by issuing a letter dated 27.07.2020 assured the complainant that they would take appropriate action against the officials of the R.K. Pur Post Office.
7. The grievance of the complainant not being addressed, finally, the complainant served a legal notice to the opposite parties-Postal Department claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for harassment, mental shock and agony caused to her and also for her failure to arrange proper treatment of her ailing father due to scarcity of money. According to the complainant, she could have saved her father, if the appellant no.3 had disbursed the money on time.
8. Having receipt of notice, the opposite parties-Postal Department appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. In their written statement, the opposite parties-Postal Department denied all the allegations raised by the respondent-complainant.
9. The respondent-complainant adduced evidence by way of filing examination-in-chief on affidavit and examined herself as P.W.1 and also produced some documents, which were marked as exhibit-P1, P2, P3 and P4. On the other hand, the opposite parties-Postal Department did not adduce any evidence.
10. Having gone through the evidence on record and after hearing the parties, the learned District Commission had passed the impugned judgment awarding Rs.10,000/- only as compensation and further sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost which comes in total Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) along with 6% interest from the date of filing this petition i.e. from 03.02.2021 in favour of the complainant.
11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the opposite parties-Postal Department have preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
12. The appellant no.1, the Chief Post Master General, NE Circle, Shillong has admitted the fact that the Postal Department had failed to provide service to the complainant, but he attributed the incident due to failure of network connectivity. He has further submitted that failure of network connectivity is a common phenomenon across the country and they are trying to gradually improve the system.
13. Mr. Majumder, learned Dy. S.G.I. appearing for the appellants-Postal Department has submitted that due to failure of network connectivity at the relevant time, when the complainant visited the office of the appellant no.3, the payment could not be made to her. He has also submitted that the complainant did not adduce any evidence to show that the complainant’s father was died due to scarcity of money. He has further submitted that in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Commission, it is in nowhere stated that due to non-disbursement of money to the complainant, her father was died.
14. Mr. Daschaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the complainant was in urgent need of money for the treatment of her ailing father and she prayed for withdrawal from her savings account in the R.K. Pur Post Office, but the amount was not disbursed by the appellant No.3. She then repeatedly informed the appellant no.3 about her urgency of money and requested them to disburse the money, but all her efforts went in vain and unfortunately her father died. He has further submitted that if the complainant could have withdrawn the money from her account, she might have saved her ailing father. But due to scarcity of money, the complainant's father was not treated and eventually he died and which happened only because of the negligence on the part of the appellants-Postal Department. He has also submitted that the appellants-Postal Department handed over the passbook to the complainant after about 21 months.
15. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also have gone through the evidence on record. Having gone through the impugned judgment, according to us, the learned District Commission though held the opposite parties-appellants were liable for the deficiency in service towards the complainant, but failed to assess the loss suffered by the complainant.
16. We are of the opinion that it is not possible to compensate the loss of a human life with money. According to us, the Postal Department was negligent and deficient in providing service towards the complainant and due to such negligence on the part of the appellants, the complainant's father had to die untimely for want of money. Accordingly, we find serious deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the appellants-Postal Department for which the complainant-respondent is entitled to get appropriate compensation for the harassment, mental shock and agony she had suffered.

 

17. Accordingly, we are inclined to modify the award made by  Ld. District Commission and direct the appellants-Postal Department to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) only as compensation to the complainant, the respondent herein, for causing harassment, mental shock and agony to her.

 

18. As a sequel, the appeal preferred by the appellants is dismissed in the above terms. The judgment of learned District Commission is erroneous and thus, set aside and quashed.

It is made clear that the above awarded compensation shall be paid to the respondent within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment; otherwise, it shall carry interest @7% per annum.