Present         (1)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 29.05.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To award compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen lakh only ).

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant applied for appointment on the post advertised by the Bihar Public service Commission vide Advertisement No. 4/07 dated 06.11.2007.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission issued admit card to the complainant for appearing in the preliminary competition examination by allotting him the roll no. 224057 ( vide Annexure – I ).
3. The complainant was declared successful in the preliminary competition examination which was published on 18.07.2008 by the B.P.S.C. The toll no. 224057 of the complainant appears at page no. 16 in the aforesaid result ( vide Annexure – II ).
4. There after B.P.S.C. issued an advertisement on 20.10.2008 for filing up the application form for the main examination to those who have succeeded in the P.T. examination and the last date for submitting the application as 20.11.2008. Further, the tentative date for the examination was fixed from 03.02.2009 ( vide Annexure – III ).
5. The complainant being successful in the P.T. examination filled up the application form in the proper format along with Rs. 150/- of I.P.O. and Rs. 75/- of stamp and sent it to the B.P.S.C. office through speed post on 14.11.2008 from Barh Main Post Office by making payment of Rs. 25/- vide receipt no. 1027 dated 14.11.2008.
6. It is submitted that when the complainant did not receive his admit card then he consulted the B.P.S.C. office on 29.01.2009. the office of B.P.S.C. informed the complainant that his application form is not available / traced out in the office and therefore, it advised the complainant to get in writing from the concerned post office. The complainant contacted the Barh Post Master who gave it in writing which is annexure – 3 to the complaint petition.
7. It is further relevant to state here that the B.P.S.C. extended the date of examination from 03.02.2009 to 21.05.2009. The complainant again contacted the office of the B.P.S.C. on 01.02.2009 with the aforesaid written acknowledgment of the Barh Post Master. The office of the B.P.S.C. made a search of his form but the same was not traced out nor their register show the receipt of the application form of the complainant. The office of the B.P.S.C. advised the complainant to contact the post office and trace out his application form there and they also said that in case if the same is received/reached the office before the date of the examination and in case the B.P.S.C. is satisfied that the application form was sent within time and the delay was due to the fault of post office then the admit card may be issued and he will allowed to appear in the examination which was to be held on 21.05.2009.
8. The complainant thereafter immediately filed an application before the Opposite Parties no. 2 and 3 on 02.02.2009 which was received by them. The complainant in his application has intimated them that his application form had not reached to the B.P.S.C. due to which he may be deprived from appearing in the main examination. He requested them to kindly trace out his application form so that his career may not be ruined ( vide Annexure – IV ).
9. When no reply was made by the Opposite Parties no. 2 and 3 then the complainant filed an application on 11.05.2009 before the opposite party no. 1 but again with no reply ( vide Annexure – V ).
10. Due to in - action of the opposite parties in responding on the application of the complainant and also by not taking any action to locate and to search out the application form the complainant was deprived from appearing in the main examination which was held on 21.05.2009.
11. The complainant was still in dark regarding the where about of his application form i.e. whether it has actually been received to the B.P.S.C. office or it has been lost in the transition. The complainant therefore filed an application on 19.05.2009 before the Opposite Party no. 2 under Right To Information Act seeking information as to why application form was not reached to the office of the B.P.S.C. ( vide Annexure – VI ).
12. When no information was provided to the complainant then he filed a complaint on 26.06.2009 before Director Postal Services O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna complaining him that the information s sought for has not been provided to him by the opposite party no. 2 ( vide Annexure – VII ).
13. Again, when no information was given then the complainant filed an appeal on 30.06.2009 as provided under the Act. ( vide Annexure – VIII, IX, X ).

The Assistant Director O/o Chief Post Master General vide letter dated 01.07.2009 directed the opposite party no. 2 to furnish the detail information with respect to claim made by the complainant. The complainant was also directed to furnish the details to the opposite party no. 2 which the complainant furnished to him vide his application dated 03.07.2009.

14. The Appellate Authority vide letter dated 09.09.2009 passed the order directing the Opposite Party no. 2 to provide the information to the complainant.
15. It is shocking to state that the opposite party no. 2 again did not provide the information to complainant and therefore, the complainant filed second appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
16. It is submitted here that the complainant and the Opposite Party no. 2 appeared before the commission on 13.01.2011 in which the Opposite Party no. 2 for the first time admitted that the speed post in question was not delivered to the addressee. It is further stated that the commission passed the final order on 13.01.2011 and award compensation u/s 19 (8) of the Act for not providing information to the complainant ( vide Annexure – XII ).
17. The complainant throughout a brilliant student and has been deprived of a bright and prosperous career of becoming senior officer in the state government due to the negligence of the opposite parties.
18. There is clear case of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for non delivering the speed post containing the application form to the B.P.S.C.
19. Such deficiency in service of the opposite parties has not only caused mental and physical harassment but it has also ruined the entire career of the complainant.

The cause of action arose on 13.01.2011 when the opposite parties for the first time admitted that the Speed Post in question was delivered to the addressee and the Complainant was suffering from Jaundice and he was advised to take complete bed rest from 02.02.2011 to 25.04.2011. A Medical Certificate was issued by the medical officer Islampur dated 25.04.2011 ( vide Annexure – XIII ).

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 in his written statement has admitted the following facts in opposition to the submission of the complainant :-

1. The above complaint case is not maintainable either in law or in facts and fit to be dismissed.
2. The complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint case and as allegation in the complaint petition is illegal, concocted, baseless and not maintainable against the opposite parties.
3. From the perusal of complaint case it appears that there is no deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Parties and his office bearer against the complainant. Hence the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay any compensation, damage, loss etc. to the complainant.
4. The complainant has not filed a cheat of paper to show that this Opposite Parties has done any illegal act or any deficiency of service or damage caused loss to the complainant or due to want of any service rendered by the Opposite Parties, the complainant has got any loss and damages.
5. The brief history of the case is that the complainant had passed the P.T. Examination conducted by the B.P.S.C. in year 2008. There after vide speed post dated 14.11.2008, he has sent his application from Barh to the Bihar Public Service Commission at Patna for appearing in the main examination. The speed post containing his application from was not delivered to Bihar Public Service Commission as a result of which he was deprived of the opportunity of taking the examination. Hence complainant prays for compensation before this Hon’ble Court.

6. The complainant has booked the speed post letters on 14.11.2008 at Barh S.O. for Bihar Public Service Commission, bailey Road, Patna which was dispatched to SPC Patna on 14.11.2008 in the office of the Manager SPC Patna.

7. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant has already filed an application for compensation before Central Information Commission and Commission had passed an Order to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the department of post. The said compensation amount was sanctioned in the name of the complainant on 01.03.2011 and paid on 11.03.2011 through cheque no. AL446975 dated 10.03.2011.

8. The statements made in paragraph no. 1 to 9 are no comments.

9. The statement made in paragraph no. 10 not admitted as his complaint was registered on 11.05.2009 with intimation as to the complainant and a receipt of RTI application dated 19.05.2009,

Manager SPC Patna was written on 20.05.2009 for intimating the disposal of the said speed post letter.

10. Due to non receiving of disposal of the said article u/r from the Manager SPC, Patna the information could not be supplied to the complainant.
11. The statement of the complainant in this Para is not true at all as it is not essential, oral of BPSC and became a Senior Officer of the State Govt. However postal department has already sanctioned the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- due to non delivery of the said speed post as per the decision of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Therefore further claim if any of the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law this case is fit to be dismissed.
12. As per clause 170 of the Post Office Guide, the Post Office is not legally liable to pay compensation in case of loss or damage to a registered article. Yet as an act of grace, the Superintendent of Post Office or a Class Post Master may grant to the sender or at his request to the addressees, a compensation up to a limit of Rs. 100/- for the loss of any inland letter, packet or parcels its contents or for any damage caused to it in transit, subject to the following conditions: - Postage and registration fee should have full prepaid. The claim for compensation should been made within three months of the date of posting of the article in the cause of loss of article and within one month of the date of delivery of the article in the loss of contents or damage. The amount of compensation will not exceed the actual amount of the loss or damage. The decision of the Director General in question of compensation is final compensation will not be given on account of postage, registration or packing charges.

All the documents available on the record are perused by us and we have also heard the Parties.

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the Postal department also invites our attention to Section 6 of the Indian Post Act, 1898 which clearly says that the government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal order in transmission by post unless the same is caused due to wilful act or default of an employee.

From whatever discussion that have been made in the foregoing paragraphs it is also a fact that section 6 of the Indian Post Act, 1898 clearly says that the government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal order in transmission by post unless the same is caused due to wilful act or default of an employee. There is no chit of paper to show that the scrolled non – delivery of letter was due to wilful act of any employee etc and thus this case is also covered within the ambit of the aforesaid Act.

Accordingly we find no merit in this case and as such this case stands dismissed but without any cost.

                                        Member                                                         Member