Orissa

Jajapur

CC/82/2017

Subhasmita Pati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superintendent of Post Cuttack North Division,Cuttack - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Kumar Das Pattanayak

15 Sep 2018

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban Ballav Das, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 15 th day of September ,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.82 of 2017

Subhasmita Pati     D/O  Ashok Ku.Pati  

At. Khandara  , P.O. Mirchandpur  ,  

P.S  /Dt.-Jajpur.  

Her mother Guardian

Smt Jharana Padhi ,W/O Ashok Ku.Pati

At.Khandara,P.O.Mirchandpur, P.S/Dt.Jajpur                                                                …… ……....Complainant .                                                                      

                                                                                                                                 

                   (Versus)

1.Superintender of post cuttack North Dv.Cuttack .

2.Post Master Mirchandpur post office (BPM) Mirchandrpur ,At/P.O. Mirchandpur  

P.S/Dt.Jajpur.

3.Post master Chittalo Sub post office ,At/P.O. Chittalo ,Dt.Jajpur .

4.Post master Debidwar post office ,At/P.O.Debidwar,Dt.Jajpur .

5.Convener Basic BSC Nursing Selection Committee Odisha, At. Office of the

Director of Nursing Head of Deptt.Building ,Bhubaneswar,Khurda .Odisha

 

                                                                                                                                                      …………………..Opp.Parties.                                                            

For the Complainant:                                   Sri  P.K.Daspattnaik,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties                                      Sri  A.K.Das ,Advocate.

                                                                                                                                 

 

                                                                                                                                           Date of order:  15.09. 2018.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS ,  PRESIDENT  .

The petitioner is a minor girl represented by her mother guardian who filed this complaint making serious allegation against the postal authority who are the O.Ps and due to the lapses and gross  negligence of the O.Ps , the petitioner suffered a loss as she failed to take admission into Basic BSC Nursing course 2017-2018 and her carrier was seriously affected.

                The petitioner  after successful completion of  + 2 examination applied for admission into BSC Nursing Course. The petitioner was selected as per her own merit and her rank was 434 vide index No.554 and the O.P.no.4 called her to attend the counselling by a call letter which was sent by O.P.no.4 to attend the process of counseling from 01.11.2017 to 03.11.2017  to be held  at Bhubaneswar. The O.P.no.4 sent the call letter to the O.Ps through speed post on 25.10.2017  vide letter No.EO-892007843 dt.25.10.2017  which was received by Debidwar post office  on 28.10.2017  and was delivered to the petitioner on 21.11.2017. After receipt of the call letter in late by the petitioner she had  no fault   and , on her approach to the O.P her request was not considered. Though there was proper mention  of PIN Code No. and Mobile No,  due to the careless attitude of O.P.no.2,3 and 4  the carrier of the petitioner was  marred . Further the case of the petitioner is that  Debidwar Branch post office received the call letter on 28.10.17 but the said article to be delivered at 2 K.M away was delivered on 21.11.17 . Thus due to the non delivery of call letter  in time the petitioner was deprived of her study and suffered mental agony for the improper service of the O.Ps  as mentioned in the body of the petition. The cause of action for filing of the case arose on 25.10.2017  and on the day when the petitioner  received  the letter on O.P.no.2 . Hence the prayer of the petitioner claiming Rs.75,000/- from the O.P  due to deficiency of service . The complaint petition is supported by an affidavit.

                On the other hand the  O.Pno.1 to 4   in a voluminous  written statement  spread   in over 7 to 8 pages  denied the allegation made by the petitioner and asked the complaint petition for the strict proof of the averments made by her  .  In para-3 of the written version it is submitted that the speed post article No. EO892007943IN was received at Chitalo S.O on 27/10/2017  from ICH Jajpur Road RMS  vide speed post bag No.EB00009272604  dt.26.10.17  duly invoice in SL No.04/05 . On the date of receipt of the article it was sent to Mirchandpur Branch post office for effecting delivery to the addressee the complaint petitioner on 21.11.2017 . It is further clarified by the O.P that Mirchandpur BO in account  with Chitalo SO instead of Debidwar SO  is the delivery point or jurisdiction . The O.P in para-4 attempted to shift its burden by clarifying that India post is facilitating on line tracking service for all type of mails posted by the customers in order to facilitate the exact location of the posted article . Thereby asking the customer to sit  before the smart phone

to track the posted mail ?  It appears here that the contention of the O.Ps is that  the petitioner should have tracked  the mail and helped the O.P in discharge of their lawful duty . So it is not the sole negligence of the O.p but it may be a contributory negligence as the petitioner played no role in tracking  her mail though Indian post facilitating on line tracking service for all type of mails has made such service for the customers. Thus in para-4 of the written version the O.P squarely blamed by the petitioner for not tracking  the article  on line and not contacting the Chitalo SO  nor availed the Toll Free No .of the Indian post within 15 days the time limit fixed by the Directorate in respect of E mail complain. So it is  all the lethargy  and inaction of the petitioner which led to timely non delivery of the mail. In the said para-4 the O.P admitted that the petitioner submitted representation on 28.11.17 which was forwarded  to the Assistant Superintendent post office ,Jajpur sub- division  for necessary inquiry on 14.12.17. As per the inquiry report Miss Rosalin  Acharya who was entrusted with the delivery work had  no idea about the beat area where  the mail was to be  delivered .Further as there was no C/O address mentioned ,it was not possible on the part of the O.P   to deliver the  article . Attempt to contact the petitioner by mobile phone was also not fruit full , so after being hopeless the O.p.no.2  kept the  article with the O.p that the petitioner will definitely come to know about her mail . So this was the delay caused and the mail was finally delivered on 21/11/2017  though  was unsuccessful  to deliver in time . So the O.P concluded that  delay in delivery  of the  mail   was not  the sole mistake of the O.P and the petitioner some how contributed  to the delay.  As stated above the postal department hoped   that the petitioner will be  pro- active to follow her mail after spending money in the post office by   speed post. The best and safest method  to deliver the mail in the present society.

                The O.P blowing hot and cold in the same breath admitted that Miss Rojaline  Acharya had  no idea of geography who was entrusted  with the delivery of the mail  but in para-5  and  in para-7 stated that  prompt delivery of a postal article is greatly facilitated, if there was correct address, pin code ,mobile no. followed by active  and mobile savy  person  who use to track his/ her mail in mobile in Indian Postal Website. This plea of the O.P appears to be absurd and have no legs to stand upon . The O.P also mentioned the Guide line in clause -26 as to what are the issues   to be observed while delivery of the article in Rural

area. The O.P also tried  to find fault in the representation of the petition dt. 28.11.17  and stated that those things are not in consonance  with clause -26 part-1 Post office Guide. So the O.P disputed point -7 that there was correct address  of the petitioner. Like wise post office guide clause-84 and other rules have been quoted by the O.p trying to shift the religious responsibilities of the Postal Department for  mis-delivery at one time and the petitioner  being a  young lady at other time and finally blame the delay was caused due to the incorrect  and  incomplete  postal address.  Even the O.P  evaded   the Postal department   responsibilities  to issue refund order for payment of speed post charges. So it is the conclusion of the O.p that due to improper , incorrect and incomplete postal address,   there was delay in delivery the mail the Department willing to pay the speed post charges and demand of rs.75,000/- by the petitioner is not in accordance with the ground reality .

                On the above pleadings of the parties,  it is to be seen whether the petitioner is a consumer and whether there is gross deficiency of service on the part of the O.P  causing slur on the petitioner’s carrier ?

Both the issues are taken together. We heard extensively from both the sides. From the written version of the O.P,  it appears that there  was   part deficiency of service  by the O.P regarding negligence caused by Rojalin Acharya  an employee who was entrusted with the  task of delivery of mail but the speed post rules and regulation go to discloses that :

                “As per existing guide lines, if an addressee is temporarily unavailable on the day of first delivery attempt , an intimation about item is to be dropped by postman and the second delivery attempt is also to be made on next working day. Even if item is not delivered on second delivery attempt, it is to be kept under deposit at delivery post office for 5 days and is to be delivered to addressee if he / she attends PO for its claim with valid ID proof other wise it shall be returned to sender after mentioned preservation period.

Coming to the case of the petitioner the O.P.no.4 sent the call letter to the petitioner on 25.10.17  which was received  at  Chitalo SO  on 27.10.17 from ICH Jajpur Road RMS vide speed post bag No.EB00009272604  dt.26.10.17  duly in voiced in  SL No. 4 and 5 .  But the article was delivered to the petitioner on 21.11.2017 , so the presumption against   the O.P  Postal Department who kept the mail   from

26.10.17 to 21.11.17 .violating the guide line of speed post as mentioned above in Bold letter  (G.L) . Thus after receipt of the mail by Mirchandpur Post office (BPM) Mirchandpur , on 27.10.17  it was not proper on the  part of the O.P Postal Authority  to keep the mail pending  with them  till  21.11.17  violating the above guide line of the above speed post with utmost negligence .  Instead of keeping  the mail the Mirchandpur post office should have returned the mail to the sender  within the stipulated period as mentioned above  in the guide line , if they are unable to tress  out the petitioner for any sufficient cause . Unfortunately this aspect has not been  highlighted by the O.P in the written version rather the O. P  tried  to shift the responsibilities and burden on the petitioner and asked her to track the mail. No doubt from the body of the petition  , it is revealed  that the petitioner is a young rustic girl who aspired to become a qualified Nurshing Graduate  but due to negligence of the Postal Department she lost   a valuable year  and was also deprived of taking BSC Nurshing Course .

                Law is well settled that the  learned counsel of the petitioner placed reliance in a decision reported in 2009(1) CPR-286(NC)  The Branch Post master village and Post Jaitpur and Others Vrs. Chandra Shekhar Pandey ,wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that:

“Where postal envelope was not delivered in time despite addressee being available it was a willful act and was deliberate  and intentional negligence entitling addressee complainant to claim compensation for the loss suffered “.

So the decisions placed by the petitioner is squarely applicable to the petitioner’s case . Hence after detail discussion and proper evaluation the materials on record we are of the considered view that there was callous and carelessness on the part of the  O.Ps  resulting in gross deficiency  of  service , for which the petitioner is entitled to be  compensate.

                As a result the case  is allowed  on contest against the O.P.No.1,2,3 ,4  and dismissed against O.P.no.5.  The petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/-( fifty thousand ) only from the O.Ps No. (1,2,3,4 )  for loss of study ,mental agony and litigation expenses etc . The O.Ps are  directed to pay the above within two months after receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner  is at liberty to  take steps as per law .

                                      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th day of  September,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.