Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1062/2012

Harvinder Singh S/o Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Post Mastaer - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No.1062  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 03.10.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 30.03.2017

Harvinder Singh aged about 27 years son of Shri Pritam Singh, resident of village Milk Majra, Post Office Gadhoula, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Sub Postmaster, Post Office, Village Gadhoula, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Superintendent, Post Offices, General Post Office, Ambala Cantt.
3. Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) Centre for Personnel Talent Management (CEPTAM) Metcalfe House, Complex, Delhi-110054 through concerned officer/director.

                                                                                                                                                                                  … Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Surjit Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              None for respondents No.1 & 2.

              Respondent No.3 already ex-parte. 

 

ORDER     (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Harvinder Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation on account of loss of mental agony, physical as well as financial harassment and wastage of time and loss of future aspects due to illegal and negligent act of the OPs and further to pay litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had applied for the post of Civilian Driver “A” post code No.0601 advertised by the Op No.3 vide Advt. No. CEPTAM-05 through Rozgar Samachar dated 10.03.2012 and had paid the requisite fee of Rs. 50/- vide postal order to the Op No.3. The OP No.3 dispatched the roll number 50615060100014 Seat No. CD0081 of the complainant on dated 22.07.2012 vide which the complainant was informed to appear on 05.08.2012 at examination Centre CDO Arts Block III, (University Business School), near Gandhi Bhawan, Punjab University Sector-14, Chandigarh for written examination. The complainant received the roll number sent by Op No.3 through OPs No.1 & 2 on 06.08.2012 and the complainant was astonished to see that the written examination for the said post has already been held on 05.08.2012. Due to the abovesaid negligent acts of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a loss as he could not give examination for the said post and hence lost his valuable chance for getting job which has been admonished/wasted. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement jointly whereas OP No.3 failed to appear despite service, hence, OP No.3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2014. OPs No.1 & 2 filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 exempts post office from any liability for loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post and no legal proceedings can be initiated against the department. The provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 are rather applicable in the instant case and it is held by Hon’ble National Commission in case reported in 1993(2) CPJ-NC-141 that if the remedy is barred by any other act, the Forum cannot grant relief as prayed for. In case of ordinary mails, no record of movement from stage to stage in the transit between the office of posting to the office of delivery is maintained and hence responsibility of OPs No.1 & 2 cannot be fixed and on merit controvert the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Roll Number/ Admit Card as Annexure C-1, Envelope of CEPTAM Department as Annexure C-2, DRDO Entry Test-2012 as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.  

5.                     On the other hand, OPs No.1 & 2 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on dated 29.03.2017. However, at the time of filing of reply OPs No.1 & 2 filed copy of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Notes for public information as Annexure R-2.

6.                     We have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The main plea of the complainant is that the Op No.3 dispatched the Roll Number/ reference No. 50615060100014 Seat No. CD0081 of the complainant on 22.07.2012 vide which the complainant was informed to appear on 05.08.2012 at examination Centre CDO, Arts Block III, (University Business School), Near Gandhi Bhawan, Punjab University, Sector-14, Chandigarh at 02.00 P.M. for written examination but he has received the said roll number through OPs No.1 & 2 on 06.08.2012 after examination for the post of Civilian Driver “A”. So the complainant has to suffer mental agony, harassment and loss of one chance for settle his life whereas the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Union of India and others Versus M.L. Bora, 2011 CTJ page 27 (CP) (NCDRC) has observed that “ Section 6 is in two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the Government and the second part deals with the individual liability of the postal employees. The first part of “Section 6 observes the Government of any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the Statute. Second part provides that no office of the Post Officer shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default”.

7.                     On the basis of aforesaid citation the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in First appeal No. 299 of 2007 decided on 29.9.2011 titled as Post Master Post Office Versus Pardeep Kumar has held “that as per provision of section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 the respondent cannot be held deficient in service for late delivery of UPC letter containing Roll number of the complainant due to which he could not appear in entrance test for B.Ed counsel and there is no evidence on the record that there was any willful of fraudulent Act on the part of the Postal Authority. So no compensation can be awarded to the complainant”

             The same view has also been taken in case titled as Senior Superintendent of Post Office Versus Dharamvir Harijan Revision Petition No. 4567 of 2012 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and Union of India Versus Mohd. Nazim, AIR 1980 page 431 Supreme Court.

            In view of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the considered view the facts of the same are fully applicable in the present complaint.

8.                     Keeping in view Section 6 of the Indian Postal Office Act, 1898, law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi mentioned above, opposite parties cannot be held deficient in service for late delivery of the speed post containing the roll number for examination for the post of Civilian Driver “A” due to which the complainant could not appear in the entrance test. Even, otherwise there is no evidence on the record to prove that there was any willful or fraudulent act on the part of the postal Authority. Thus, complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 30.03.2017

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR

 

                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                           MEMBER