An envelope containing the interview call letter for the post of Manager in Tumkur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Tumkur addressed to the complainant Bashusab fixing the date of interview on 22-08-2014 at Central Office of the Tumkur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., in Tumkur has been booked at Head Post Office, Tumkur on 13-08-2014.

            2.  Address is mentioned in the interview call letter, Ex.A.1 is reproduced herein:

            3.  The above postal envelope received by the complainant on 27-8-2014 i.e. 5 days after the date of interview and therefore he cannot attend the interview, which is unfortunate.

            4.  OP No.1 is the Sub Post Master, Post Office, Kanakagiri, who is responsible for the deficiency in service according to the complainant.

            5.  On the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of Postal Department, the complainant contended that he lost the employment and suffered mental agony, for which reason he approached this Forum seeking compensation under the following heads;

            6.  Inspector of Posta, Sub Division, Koppal has filed the written version supported by his affidavit explaining the cause for the delay in delivery of the postal article addressed to the complainant.  The postal article posted at Tumkur on 13-08-2014 was received at Kanakagiri S.O. on 19-08-2014 in the mail list dated 18-08-2014 of Hospet sorting at serial no. 03/11 and was invoiced to Sulekar BO since the address of the said article was “BHASHUSAB S/O KHASEEMSAB SULEKAL KANAKAGIRI AT/POST GANGAVATHI (TQ) KOPPAL (DIST).”

            7.  Section – 6 the Indian Post Office Act – 1898 has also been reproduced, which is as under;

“Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage – The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in court of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the [Central government] as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

            8.  The detail track for RPAD booked on 13-8-2014 at Tumkur Head Post Office is available at Ex.A.6, which discloses that article booked to Raichur RMS on 14-08-2014 and received at Raichur RMS on 16-8-2014 and bagged to Hospet STG, which is received on 18-08-2014 at Hospet.  The bag was dispatched to Kanakagiri on same day.

            9.  The bag was received at Kanakagiri SO on 19-08-2014.  The Sub Post Master, Kanakagiri sent the article to Sulekal Sub Post Office since the address portion mentioned is Sulekal Kanakagiri post.  Sulekar is a nearby village of Kanakagiri post office having same PIN code number.  On 19-8-2014 the Branch Post Master, Sulekal issued the RLAD for delivery on 20-08-2014 to the concerned post man.  The addressee was not available at Sulekal village.  Therefore, the branch Post Master returned the RLAD to the Kanakagiri S.O. with endorsement “Try at Kanakagiri”.  Meanwhile, Sri. S.Manjunath, Sub Post Master at Kanakagiri S.O. has been deputed for training from 19-8-2014 to 22-08-2014 for training programme for PLI in FSI project at WCTC Dharwad and SPM Karatagi was placed in-charge vide Ex.B1.  The regular SPM was relieved at afternoon on 18-8-2014 and reported on 19-8-2014.  After the training, he took charge on the afternoon on 23-8-2014.  During this period Mr.H.K.Manjunath SPM Karatagi SO was in-charge of Kanakagiri S.O.  This man was new to place Kanakagiri.  The statements of K.Pampapathi, BPM, Sulekal is available at Ex.B.4 which shows that since no such addressee was available in Sulekal, the registered envelope was returned to Kanakagiri.  The statement of H.K. Manjunath. shows that he returned the letter (RLAD) because the address mentioned in the report discloses that address is at Sulekal on 20-08-2014 was reached Kanakagiri Post Office on 21-08-2014.

            10.  On 27-08-2014 RLAD was issued to Postman for delivery to addressee and the same was delivered to the complainant on 27-08-2014.

            11.  Thus considered that, there is no willful act or fraudulent act or default on the part of the postal official at Kanakagiri.  The name of addressee mentioned in Ex.A.1 is Bashusab.  The name of the complainant as mentioned in Ex.A.4, Admission Card for the written examination is also Bashusab.  The name of the complainant as mentioned in the present complaint is Bashusab.  The name of the complainant as mentioned in the notice, Ex.A.7 is also ‘Bashusab’.  The word ‘Sulekal’ is not a part of his name.  Third line in the address part mentioned in Ex.A.1 clearly indicates the place of residence, which is follows ‘Sulekal Kanakagir AT Post’.  Anybody, who reads this line guess that ‘Sulekal’ which is a part of Kanakagiri post must be residing in Sulekal.  Therefore, sending the postal article to Sulekal cannot be termed as default or negligence on the part of the S.O.at Kanakagiri.  Particularly when the regular SPM was on deputation for training and some other person was working on temporary basis.  It may be also noted that the delay occurred in the useful course, for which the complainant himself has to be blamed, because there was no need for him to mention the word ‘Sulekal’ while he is residing at Kanakagiri. 

12.  We make it clear that we do not consider any after delivery of same through RLAD on previous occasion at the same address.  We also reject the contents at Ex.A.10 as true and correct because Bashusab.K.Sulekal is not the name of the complainant as mentioned in the RLAD in question.

            13.  In view of discussion herein above, we decline to accept that there was willful act or default in not delivering the RLAD to the complainant before the date of interview on 22-08-2014.

            14.  Counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the following decisions;

            i. Head Post Master and Anr., V/s Neeraj Gupta –
                   2013 (2) CPR 631 (NC)

            ii. Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, NIT, Faridabad & Anr., V/s Shri
                  Mahabir Prasad & Anr., - 2013 (3) CPR 166 (NC).

            15.  In the first mentioned decision, the National Commission refuse to condone the delay of 63 days in presenting the Revision Petition.  That being so, the question of considering the case on merits has not arisen nevertheless the National Commission dismissed the revision on merits.  Consumer Protection Act should be consumer friendly and not one which works against interest of consumers without referring to the ingredients of Section – 6 of the Indian Post Office – 1898, which has not been derogated u/sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  Therefore, this decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.

            16.  In the last mentioned decision, the State Commission stated that the postal authorities remains liable for non-delivery of speed post article to the complainant therein and it is the result of fraud or atleast default of the dealing assistant of speed post articles because of which it reached the wrong hands who got it encashed from HSBC Bank.  More details of the case are available at Para – 20, 24 & 25 of this decision.  Anyway, that was a case of encashment of a cheque for Rs.51,030.00 send through speed post and not served on the addressee or returned back to the sender and postal article was misplaced at the post office and cheque was en-cashed.  Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the article in question has been delivered to the addressee in the case before us. 

            17.  The claim of Rs.15,00,000.00 compensation as monetary loss arising out of loss of job has no basis because the letter in question was not an appointment letter but only an interview letter.  The loss was only a chance for appearing to interview.  There was only one post in category 2B for the post of Manager in the recruitment notification, for which the complainant was qualified to be interviewed.  His serial number was 13.  So there was stiff competition for the post.  Hence it is not possible to conclude that the complainant would have been definitely selected for the post of Manager.

            17.  To conclude, the complaint stands dismissed. 

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.