This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Pranab Kumar Sharma against Superintendent of Post Offices, Nadia North Division, SSRM, RMSH Division & Superintendent RMS SG Division.
The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Pranab Kumar Sharma filed the complaint on 22.08.14 stating that he passed ITC, Motor Mechanical. He did apprenticeship in Calcutta Tram Ways Company (1978) Ltd. The complainant is having heavy driving licence. He applied for a post in the State Transport Department but his application is not delivered to the addressee. Naturally, the complainant Pranab Kumar Sharma could not appear for the interview board. The letter was sent by speed post but the envelope reached the destination after 7 days. The complainant has met the postal department representatives for losing his job what he was supposed to get. Had he been capable of appearing in the interview board? The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-.
The postal department has filed written version on 29.12.14. The sum & substance of the written version is as below:-
The postal service does not come under the purview of term of service as contemplated in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was walking on the sky on the basis of contingency. The petition was malafide, false & motivated. The petitioner booked the article on 03.03.14. The article dispatched to Malda RMS & thereafter, Malda RMS on 05.03.14 dispatched the bag to Siliguri. Siliguri received the bag on 06.03.14 but from Siliguri to Coochbehar no communication was received.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Does the postal services come under Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
Complainant gave evidence on affidavit & OP filed interrogatories on 03.08.15. We have perused the letter written by the complainant to Superintendent Postal Offices Nadia. We have also gone through the letters written by postal officers regarding delivery of the speed post article.
The Postal Department could not explain the whereabouts of the terms of the article from Siliguri to Coochbehar & delivery of the same to the addressee.
We have also gone through the written argument filed by both parties filed on 28.09.15 & 06.10.15.
It has been argued that the complainant is a poor man with heavy driving licence. It has been further argued that had the complainant got the opportunity to appear in the competitive examination, he would have got the job. Ld. GP while challenging the contentions of the complainant as submitted that the reason for delay in Coochbehar Head Post Office could not be explained, otherwise the postal department had no fault at all. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment revision petition No. 3591 to 2009 dtd. 08.12.14. We have meticulously gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission placed by ld. G.P. in order to defend the OPs. At Para- 10 of the said judgment it has been held that “services referred by post office is statutory & there is no contractual liability.” It has been further made clear that the post office has no contractual liability with the customers.
In the written version page 4 deficiency of postal department has been denied as the addressee referred to receive the article in question.
While we considered the correspondence of the superintendent of post offices with a complaint our attention was also drawn to IV (2012) CPJ 722 (NC) wherein it has been held that the postal department should under all probabilities must see that letter reached destination in time. It has been further held that letter sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent in nature. The Hon'ble National Commission has held in that case postal department was deficient in service. The case law does not match in the instant case.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2014/120 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OPs without cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
