DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 241 of 14.6.2016
Decided on: 11.5.2018
Paramjeet Kumar son of late Sh.Rattan Dass, resident of village Dharamkot , Post office Sanour, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala.
3. Amarjit Kaur, Sub-Post master, Post office Sanaur, District Patiala.
4. Surinder Singh , Postman, Post Office Sanaur, District Patiala
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
None for the complainant.
Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Paramjeet Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant appeared in M.A.Sociology, Part-II, examination, held in the month of May,2015, conducted by Punjabi University, Patiala as a re appear candidate for the paper-Sociological and anthropological theory-II. The complainant submitted the requisite form and other documents alongwith requisite fee of rs.2450/- vide receipt dated 14.8.2015 with the authorities of Punjabi University, Patiala on account of re-appear fee for the above said examination to be conducted on 5.10.2015. The complainantapproached Punjabi University, Patiala for issuance of roll number slip/admit card but it was told to him that the same cannot be handed over to him personally and would be sent through post. When the complainant did not receive the roll number slip/admit card, who after checking the record said that there is no roll number/admit card sent from Punjabi University, Patiala for its delivery to the applicant/complainant and asked the complainant to wait for the same but he did not receive the roll number/admit card. To know whether the roll number /admit card has been dispatched to him by the officials of Punjabi University, Patiala or not , he approached Punjabi University, Patiala when it came to his notice that the roll number of the complainant has already been dispatched through post . Accordingly the complainant approached the OPs for the receipt of the roll number/admit card but it was told that no document for delivery from Punjab University, Patiala has been received inspite of the fact that the same had been dispatched by the officials of Punjabi University, Patiala. That due to non delivery of the roll number, the complainant could not appear in the re-appear exam, on the date fixed. The complainant again submitted the documents and deposited the examination fee of Rs.3650/-, for the examination of the above said paper, vide receipt dated 15.12.2015. On 2.12.2015, the complainant alongwith his brother visited the Sub Post office, Sanaur and enquired for non delivery of his roll number slip/ admit card, which was to be conducted on 5.10.2015. On the permission granted to him for searching his roll number from the heap of undelivered envelops, the complainant found the envelope containing roll number slip/admit card sent by the Punjabi University, Patiala but the same was not stamped or entered by the officials of the OPs in their receipt register. Due to this negligent action and malafide acts, on the part of the OPs, the complainant could not appear in the exam which was to be held on 5.10.2015 and had to deposit the fee again for the same. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused physical harassment and mental agony to him. Hence this complaint for the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay damages , on account of deficiency in service and spoiling the future of the complainant for no fault on his part.
Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs No.1&2 who on being put to notice, appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that the article was dispatched by Punjabi University, Patiala. It is stated that on receipt of a joint complaint from Sh.Paramjit Kumar and Balkar Singh, regarding non delivery of roll number, dispatched by Punjabi University, Patiala, matter was got inquired and it was revealed that article was posted as ordinary article the information of which was given to the complainant. Moreover, as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act,1898, the department of post shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or to. There is no negligence on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.S.D.Sheikh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence of OPs.
We have heard the ld. counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that on receipt of a complaint dated 8.1.2016,Ex.C1, from the complainant & Balkar Singh, an enquiry was got conducted by the Department of Posts, Office of Inspector Posts, Patiala. On enquiry, it was found that the envelop annexed alongwith the complaint, submitted before the Post Office, was not bearing the stamp of any Post Office. The delivery status of said ordinary franked letter could not be confirmed and without this, the responsibility could not be ascertained. Moreover, there is no provision of any compensation or ex-gratia for the delayed delivery or loss of ordinary article .Therefore, as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898, Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief by way of compensation for loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to the postal article in a course of its transmission and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
7. From the perusal of the enquiry report, Ex.OP3, it had been opined by the Enquiry Officer, that no responsibility can be ascertained against any official/ officer, for the non delivery of the article/envelop, as the same was not bearing the stamp of any Post Office. Neither the complainant has rebutted this report nor has placed on record any such document to prove this fact that the letter had been not delivered to him by the official of the Post Office, intentionally. Thus, we do not
hesitate to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove this fact that the letter /envelop in question had not been delivered by the official of the Post Office by willful act. It may be stated here that in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898, Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, which reads as under “ The [Government shall not incur any liability by reason of misdelivery or delay or damage to, any postal article in course 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”. Since we have already hold that that complainant has failed to prove that the letter in question had not been delivered to him due to willful act of the official of the Post Office, therefore, as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898, as referred to above, the OPs are not liable to compensate the complainant for non delivery of the letter in question. In the case of Postmaster Imphal and others Vs. Jamini Devi 1992(CCC)108,the Hon’ble National Commission, has been held that, as per Section 6, of the Indian Post Office, Act, 1898, no office of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the case. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:11.5. 2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
