The appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed to the judgement and final order dated 16/11/2018 delivered by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Dakshin Dinajpur in reference to CC no. 52 of 2018. The appellant in this case are post master, Tapan, S.P.O, post master, Chakvrigu, post master, Malda H.P.O, post master, Balapur Branch P.O, I.C.H, Malda Hub. The appellants in this case are represented through Mr. Manoj Kr. Pattnayak, superintendent of post, Dinajpur Division. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent Shri. Amal Chandra Hore was an unemployed person and his candidature as ‘Majdoor’ at Garulia Municipality, Dist. N.24 Parganas was selected by the employment exchange and for that reason he was called for written examination which was scheduled to be held on 14/04/2018. The call letter of such interview was sent by the registered post through consignment no. EW116117702IN dated 06/04/2018 and virtually, the call letter was delivered to the complainant by the post office on 23/04/2018 that is more than 17 days from the date of consignment. The complainant due to negligence on the part off the post office has lost an opportunity for getting a job for which he has claimed Rs. 9,80,000/- for compensation for causing pain and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost. All the appellants that is the opposite party no. 1 to 5 had contested consumer complaint and they have denied the deficiency of service on their part and OP no. 5 in its written version virtually started the blame game against OP no. 1 and 2 for deficiency of service on their part. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences and after hearing both sides have come to a conclusion that the alleged consignment was remained unnecessarily under the carpet for three consecutive days on the part of the OP No. 2 and for the fault on the part of OP no. 2, the complainant has lost the chance in getting a semi-government job and the act and attitude of OP no. 2 has prompted the Ld. Forum to cast liability upon the OP no. 2 and directed the OP no. 2 to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

            Being aggrieved with the said order, this appeal follows on the ground that the address of the respondent in the envelope of the call letter was wrongly written and for that reason the delay was there on the part of the concerned post offices to deliver the same in due time. The appellants were not authorized to verify the contents of the consignment and cannot rewrite the articles and for that reason after searching out the proper address of the respondent the same was handed over to him on 20/04/2018 which was not intentional or having any mala fide intention. The Postal Authority was wrongly blamed by the Ld. Forum and the finding of Ld. Forum was full of error, unjustified and not authorized with law and liable to be set aside.

            The appeal was admitted on merit. And the respondent Amal Chandra Hore after receiving the notice of appeal has contested the appeal through his legal representative. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

D E C I S I O N S   W I T H   R E A S O N S

            Having heard the valuable arguments of both sides and after going through the entire pleadings of both sides, it appears to us that the address written in the exchange card of the respondent was recorded as per the caste certificate issued by S.D.O, Balurghat in 1985 where the native village of the complainant Chachai was shown within Balapur P.O under Tapan, S.P.O. The OP no. 2 that is Chakvrigu, S.P.O has received the said consignment on 09/04/2018 and remained the same in their custody till 12/04/2018. Thereafter, dispatched the same to Malda, H.P.O. Malda, H.P.O again sent the consignment to Balurghat H.P.O on 14/04/2018 and Tapan S.P.O had received the same on 16/04/2018 through Balurghat H.P.O. Ultimately, it was handed over to the complainant on 23/04/2018 and the consignment track record speaks that the item was dispatched for delivery on 20/04/2018 while the date of interview was fixed on 14/04/2018. It is highlighted during the time of course of argument on the part of the Ld. Senior Advocate of the appellants that as per provision of Indian Post Office Act the Government is always exempted from liability for any loss or mis-delivery or delay or damages for any consignment and the officer of the post office has no personal liability for such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Ld. Advocate of the appellant submitted that casting a responsibity of opposite party no. 2 on the part of the Ld. Forum to pay compensation to the respondent is not warranted in law and the Forum has not empowered by virtue of provision of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act even in the event of loss of domestic speed post article or its components or damaged to the contents compensation shall be doubled to the amount of composite speed post charges.

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the appellant further argued that as per provision of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the consumer court shall not exceed the amount prescribed by the Central Government for delay of the delivery of that data or article. In support of his case Ld. Advocate of the appellant referred catena of judgements reported in (i) 2017 CPJ 115(NC), (ii) 2002 STPL (CL) 1036 (NC) etc.

            Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of his turn during the course of the argument mentioned that post offices are well empowered to make a correction of the address if the address is mis-spelt or wrong PIN code no is inserted. He pointed out in this particular appeal case that while the notice of appeal was sent to the respondent from this Circuit Bench, the local post offices has corrected the address of the addressee which clearly indicates that post offices due to their lackadaisical attitude has deliberately kept the consignment in their custody for long days without any valid reason and ultimately has delivered the same when the date of interview was over. He pointed out that section 3 of CP Act has empowered the Ld. Forum to override the provisions of other Acts without derogating the provisions of other statues. He pointed out that an unemployed youth at the age of 37 has lost an opportunity of getting a job. Being a man of scheduled caste community, he runs his life in a lower middle-class family in sub-altern level. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument mentioned before this Commission that scope of the Consumer Protection Act is very limited one as because any provision of this Act shall not derogate the provisions of any other law. He pointed out that where the specific provision of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1989 is there, no other remedies lies for breaching of the provisions of the post office Act.

            After going through the section 3 of the CP Act, it appears to us the jurisdiction of consumer fora should not be curtailed unless there is an expressed provision prohibiting the consumer fora to take up the matter. The provisions of section 3 clearly relates “In addition to” and not derogatory to any other law. So, the Ld. Forum had vested the power to make award of compensation in favour of a bona fide consumer who has missed an opportunity of getting a job due to deficiency of service or default on the part of the concerned post office and postal authorities.

            So, after hearing the valuable argument of both sides, the Commission finds no error in the decision of the Ld. Forum. The Commission finds no irregularities in the order passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Balurghat. No infirmity also detected and for that reason the Commission does not want to interfere with the order of the Ld. Forum.

            Thus, it appears to us that the appeal devoids of any merit.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The judgement and final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Balurghat dated 16/12/2018 in reference to CC no. 52 of 2018 is hereby confirmed. Let the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Balurghat and the copy of the order be handed over to the parties of this case free of cost.