KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 361/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 12.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 240/2012 of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
1. Department of posts, India, Represented by Chief Postmaster General,
Office of the Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-
695033.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam Division, Kottayam.
3. Postmaster Thekkekkara Post Office,Poonjar, Kottayam.
4. V M Rasheed, Postman, Thekkekkara Post Office, Poonjar, Kottayam.
(By R.P. Sandeep, Authorized Representative)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Soumya O A , Ozhukayil House, Poonjar, South P.O, Pin. 686582.
(By Advs. Suresh S. & C.S. Rajmohan)
JUDGMENT
SRI. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN: MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 240/2012 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 22.09.2014 the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs as under:-
(A) The opposite parties are jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service committed by the 4th opposite party.
(B) The 4th opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.
(C) The opposite parties are also ordered to pay Rs. 3000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation. The complainant is entitled to realize the said amount jointly and severally from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the same with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization from the opposite parties jointly and severally.
2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows. The complaint pertains to the delay in delivery of a call letter sent by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to the complainant. She was an applicant for the post of Assistant under sports quota in LIC. The call letter dated 19-09-2011 for the selection trials at Bhopal scheduled from 10.10.2011 to 13.10.2011 was sent by registered post by LIC on 28.09.2011. It was delivered to her only on 11.10.2011. She could not attend the trials as she received the call letter only after the date of reporting for trials. She lost an employment opportunity because of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the call letter in time. She sent a complaint to postal authorities on 12.10.2011 and 8.12.2011. In the reply received on 19.12.2011, it was stated there was no negligence on their part. Hence she filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. One lakh and costs.
3. The opposite party filed version stating that the letter addressed to the complainant was received at Poonjar, Thekkekara Post Office on 01-10-2011. When the postman visited the residence of the addressee on 01.10.2011 and 03.10.2011, the complainant or her family members were not available there. A notice was served at the address on 03-10-2011 as per the procedure. The letter was kept in deposit and as a last chance the delivery official took the article again on 11-10-2011 and delivered the letter. The opposite party has given timely intimation to the addressee and so there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence in the complaint consisted of Exbts. A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 to B4 marked on the side of the opposite party. On the basis of the evidence adduced the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties have filed this appeal.
5. Heard both sides. The authorized representative for the appellant submitted that the appellants have taken necessary action in conformity with the rules on delivery of a registered article. The postman went to the house of the addressee on the date of receiving the letter on 01.10.2011 and also on 03.10.2011. There was none at her residence and hence intimation was placed through the gap of the door of the residence. On getting the intimation the addressee should have collected the letter from the post office. Appellants are not responsible for the delay and its consequences, if any, as it happened only because of the lapse on the part of the respondent/complainant. It is also submitted that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation unless there is misdelivery or damage to any postal article because of fraudulent and willful default committed by them. The complainant could not prove the alleged willful negligence or default on the part of the department or its employees. The respondent/complainant is equally responsible to enquire about the arrival of the letter at the post office. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and hence they prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that the call letter was sent by the LIC in time and it reached the post office on 01-10-2011 itself. It is not true that there was nobody at home when the postman visited the residence. She and her family members were very much present at home. They did not get any intimation regarding the registered letter received from LIC. There was intentional delay on the part of the appellants/ opposite parties in delivering the letter in time. As the letter reached her only after the date for reporting for the selection trials at Bhopal, she lost a very good opportunity in getting an employment in LIC. Hence the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal with cost.
7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and carefully perused the records. It is admitted by the appellants that they received a letter from LIC of India on 28.09.2011 for sending the same to the complainant by registered post. It is also admitted that the said letter reached the Thekkekara Post office, Poonjar on 01-10-2011 and it was delivered only on 11-10-2011. There is no doubt that there is inordinate delay on the part of the postal Department in delivering the letter and the reasons given by them for the delay is not at all convincing. We note that there is overwriting in the postal endorsement on the reverse side of the envelope in which Ext A1 call letter was received. As the date is tampered with, the contention of the appellant regarding issuing timely intimation to the complainant cannot be accepted. The delay in delivering the letter adversely affected the future of an unemployed youth. She lost an opportunity in getting an employment in an organization like LIC. It appears that the delivering official took it so casually that a registered letter was delivered so late. We also agree to the observation of the District Commission that immunity under section 6 of the Indian Post office Act will not come to rescue the appellants/opposite parties in this case. Following observations made by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Union of India Vs Amal Chandra Hore {I (2020) CPJ 341 (NC)} is relevant in this case: “26. Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its consumers.” It further observed that “27. Section 6 does not provide unquestionable immunity. The onus to establish that protection of section 6 can be taken in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Postal Department, which onus it has not discharged in this case. And this has to be seen in conjunction with the deficiency in service under the Act, 1986………………….”.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. We concur with the finding of the District Commission that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants /Opposite Parties in handling the postal article entrusted to them. We are of the view that compensation should commensurate with the injury suffered. We find that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- awarded as compensation by the District Commission is on a higher side. In our opinion an amount of Rs 15,000/- will be a just and reasonable compensation. Accordingly we modify the order dated 22.09.2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, by reducing the compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. There is no change in the other terms of the order.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 22-09-2014 of the District Commission is modified by reducing the compensation amount ordered by the District Commission from Rs. 30,000/- to 15,000/-. In all other aspects the order passed by the District Commission shall remain/stand intact. There is no order as to costs.
The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 19,000/- towards statutory deposit for filing this appeal. Respondent/ complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application. The balance amount shall be paid by the opposite parties as per the direction within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order failing which the respondent/ complainant is at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order.
Sd/-
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
