Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 04-12-2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur in CC/14/2012.  By such order, the instant complaint case has been allowed.

The case of the Complainant, in short, was that he applied for a competitive examination being conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.  The concerned authority issued admit card and sent the same through post on 18-01-2012, but the same reached the end of the Complainant on 15-02-2012.  Owing to laches of the OP, the Complainant could not sit for the said competitive examination.  Alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint case was filed.

OP Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand, submitted that the instant letter was delivered to the Complainant in time; there was no laches on their part in handling the same.  It was claimed by them that there was no mention of any urgency on the envelope.  Further case of the OPs was that the said letter was sent by ordinary post.  Since the Department keeps no record of the same, it was futile to fix up any liability.  If the letter was sent through either Speed Post or Registered Post, the Department could trace out the cause of delay. 

Decision with reasons

It appears from the record that Respondent was initially represented by one Advocate.  However, at the hearing stage no one turned up on his behalf.  Therefore, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

It is rightly held by the Ld. District Forum that as a beneficiary of the services hired by the Authority of Staff Selection Commission, the Respondent was a bona fide consumer.

It appears from the impugned order that the instant admit card was despatched on  18-01-2012 and delivered to the residence of the Respondent on 15-02-2012.  It is though asserted by the Appellants that since it does not keep track of ordinary letters, in absence of specifics, it was not possible for them to fix up the responsibility, in our considered opinion, that cannot be an alibi to justify such abrupt mishandling of the subject letter, particularly when it was prominently superscribed on the envelope that the same contained “Urgent examination material”. It was the abrupt failure of the Postal Department as a whole, for which it cannot shrink its responsibility under any circumstances.

The Appellants though sought for due immunity u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, it appears to us that, any statute providing immunity as to the liability of service provider does not come in the way of right of consumer to be compensated in terms u/s 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby Consumer Forum on being satisfied about the deficiency in service may order to pay such an amount as compensation for any loss or injury including mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort suffered by consumer due to the negligence of the service provider.  In our considered opinion, therefore, the immunity accorded to any officer and/or Government authority has got nothing to do with the concept of compensation to a consumer when negligence of the service provider is palpable beyond all reasonable shade of doubt.

In the matter of Department of Post v. Gajanand Sharma [Revision Petition No.541 of 2016], the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observe that the only stand of the Postal Department in that case was that the relevant records were not available and therefore the reasons could not be ascertained. It was further observed that such attitude of the Postal Department was a deliberate attempt to hide the real reason for the wrongdoing of its employee(s) in not delivering the letter within the norms prescribed by the Postal Department itself. “Such conduct of the Postal Department, leads to irresistible conclusion that there was a willful default on the part of its official(s) concerned, which is not being disclosed and, therefore, the case of the Complainant falls within the ambit of the exception carved out under Section 6 of the said Act. Having held so, and there being a clear deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the CPA, 1986, I am of the opinion that a reasonable compensation of Rs.  25,000 awarded by the State Commission is completely justified,” noted the Hon’ble Commission while dismissing the revision petition of the Postal Department.

To sum up, we find no merit in this Appeal.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondent with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellants to the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.