Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 9th day of June, 2005
C.D.No.98/2004
Y.Venkata Subba Reddy,
S/o. Yanam Rami Reddy,
Padakandal (V),
Allagadda (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri P.Sivasudarshan, Advocate
-Vs-
1. Superintendent Postal
Department, Nandyal,
Kurnool Dist.
2.Post Master, Post Office,
Padakandal (V), Allagadda (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party 1 and 2 represented by
their counsel Sri M.D.V Jogaiah Sarma
3. B.Subba Rayudu, (E.D.D.A)
Post Man, Post Office,
Padakandal (V),
Allagadda (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.3 represented by
His Counsel K.Kapilaswaraiah.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant applied for examination for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, conducted by A.P Public Service Commission, Hyderabad. The opposite party No.2 office received Hall Ticket of the complainant on 27.1.2004 itself, but the opposite party No.3 due to personal enmity with the complainant’s family delivered the said letter to the complainant on 31.1.2004 at 12.30 P.M. On opening the said cover by the complainant it was found that date of examination for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to be on 31.1.2004 and 1.2.2004 at Hyderabad at 2. P.M. The opposite party No.3 wantedly delayed in delivering the said cover to the complainant, due to which the complainant could not attend examination at Hyderabad which is 350 K.M from his Village. The complainant and village elders conducted enquiry and the opposite party No.3 admitted all facts and
wrote a letter to inspector of Post Offices, Allagadda. The opposite party No.3 due to its lapsive attitude in delivering the cover to the complainant spoiled the future of the complainant and there by alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1) postal cover along with Hall Ticket of the complainant and (2) letter dt 31.1.2004 of opposite party No.3 to Allagadda, Postal Inspector, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernemnts and a third party sworn affidavit and caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite parties.
4. Inpursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party 1 and 2 appeared before this Forum through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 remained absent through out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite parties 1 and 2 denies the complainants case as not maintainable either in law or on facts. It admits the opposite part No.2 office received a postal article on 27.1.2004 by ordinary post addressed to the complainant and the same was misplaced in the post office and was traced out on 31.1.2004, immediately, on the same day the postal article was delivered to the complainant by opposite party No.3 and on enquiry by opposite party No.1 it was found that delay in serving the said postal article was not due to any personal animosity between opposite party No.3 and complainant’s family but it was only due to misplacement of the postal article.
6 The written version of opposite party 1 and 2 further submits that as per section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act and also as per clause 31 of Post Office guide part-1, the postal department shall not incur any liability by the reasons of loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission by post, hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be made severally liable for the same. The compensation claimed by the complainant is totally baseless and highly excession and there is no valid ground for granting the same and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties filed sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and did not file sany document, and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by complainant and caused interrogatories to the complainant and third party.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
9. It is a simple case of the complainant that he applied for the examination for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer conducted by APPSC, at Hyderabad. The complainant alleges that the Hall-Ticket for the above said examination was received by opposite party No.2 office on 27.1.2004, ontedly the opposite party No.3 (Post Man) delivered the said letter to the complainant on 31.1.2004 as there is animosity between the complainant and the opposite party No.3. But as against to it the written version of opposite parties 1 and 2 alleges that the said letter was not delivered to the complainant as it was misplaced in the opposite party No.2 office and immediately after trace out i.e on 31.1.2004, it was delivered to the complainant at 12.30 P.M on the same day and there is no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant in support of his contention relied on Ex A.1 and A.2. The Ex A.1 is the postal cover addressed to the complainant along with Hall Ticket. The said cover was stamped by opposite party No.2 office on 27.1.2004 after receipt of the said cover. But the said cover was delivered to the complainant on 31.1.2004 and the same was admitted by opposite party No.3 vide Ex A.2. The Ex A.2 is the letter dt 3.1.2004 addressed to Allagadda, Postal Inspector by the opposite party No.3 (Post Man B.Subbarayudu). It envisages the receipt of letter of the complainant on 27.1.2004 and the same was duly stamped by opposite party No.3 but the said opposite party No.3 delivered the said letter to complainant on 31.1.2004 after a delay of 4 days which he admits due to mistake. From the record it is established that the said letter was delivered to the complainant after 4 days of its receipt and the reason averred by opposite party No.3 is due to mistake, which clearly shows there is willful negligence on part of opposite party No.3 in not delivering the said letter on the day it was received, therefore, it is clear carelessness by the concerned post man i.e opposite party No.3 in not delivery the said cover to the complainant which appears to be wontedly.
10. Now the question is whether there is any immunity to the opposite parties from its liability, the learned counsel for opposite parties strongly argued that there is immunity and relied on Rule 6 of Indian Post Offfices Act and Post Office guide Part I but did not filed relied material for perusal by this Forum and there is no immunity because the said letter was received and stamped on 27.1.2004 and not delivered to the complainant on the same date and the reasons averned is misplaced, but it appears that there is willful carelessness and negligence by opposite party No.3 (Post man) for not delivering the said letter in time, which is admitted by opposite party No.3 in Ex A.2. In this case it is crystal clear that negligence fraud has been caused, so opposite party No.3 is liable for deficiency of service.
11. Now the question remains about the quantum of compensation. There is no doubt that post man (OP No.3) was shown derelictions to the complainant in not delivering the said letter which stands admitted by the opposite party No.3 for this act of negligence, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 stand proved. So the opposite party No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant and case against opposite party No.1& 2 is dismissed for want of caused of action.
12. It is result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for not delivering the said letter to the complainant in time within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party No.3 is liable to pay awarded amount with 12% interest per annum till realization, without prejudice to the right of the complainant to implement the order.
Dictation to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 9th day of June, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite party
Ex A.1 Postal cover along with Hall ticket -Nil-
relating to the Complainant.
Ex A.2 Letter dt 31.01.2004 of opposite
Party No.3 to Allagadda Postal Inspector.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
