West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/48/2017

Chanchal Sen, S/o Rabin Sen, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Department.of post, India - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

19 Jan 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Chanchal Sen, S/o.- Rabin Sen, permanent resident of Vill.- Karidhya(Senpara), P.O.- Karidhya, P.S.- Suri and Dist.- Birbhum.

            The complainant has been practicing as an Advocate under the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Birbhum at Suri since 2008.

            That he being eligible of the examination for Direct recruitment from bar to cadre of Higher Judicial Officer in the rank of District Judge in the West Bengal Service applied for the same. He posted the application along with demand draft being No. 890362 dated 19/04/2016 of Rs. 700/- and all the relevant documents intact in an envelope through registered speed post. He posted the letter at Suri Head Post Office on 28/04/2016 being letter No. EW7511413411N.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant received the said envelope on 04/05/2016 with an endorsement “Receiver Refused”, with an initial signature with date 02/05/2016.

            Thus, the complainant was deprived of appearing at the said examination. Thereafter, he complained and claimed for compensation for wilful negligence of Department of Post before the Post-master Suri Head Post Office. But, the postal authority did neither respond to the letter of the complainant nor take any step to do the needful.

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs requesting the Forum/Commission:-

1. To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and damages.
2. To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Other relief/reliefs.

The OP/Department of Post, India stated in Para i) of their additional written notes on argument as “An article No. EW751141341IN was booked on 28/04/2016 at Suri HO and content of the said article is not verified.”

The OP stated in Para ii), iii) & iv) of their additional W/N/A as “That article was sent for delivery at delivery location on 02/05/2016 but Refused by the addressee and article was returned to the sender. As per norms of Citizen’s Charter of Department of Post, a speed post article is to be delivered between 1-4 days excluding date of Sunday and holiday intervening. (Rule 66-B (5) of the Indian Post Office Rule, 1933).”

 “Here in this case, attempt of delivery was effected with the same norms. (i.e., on the fourth day of booking, as 01/05/2016 was Sunday).”

 “Hence, there was no question of delay in delivery.”

The OP stated in Para v) of their additional W/N/A as “The complainant has taken shelter of the Hon’ble Forum after lapse of 1 year 4 months but as per Rule 66-B (4) of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, the complainant may prefer complaint within three months from the date of booking of the article. However, as per Rule 66-B(5) of Indian Post Office Rule, 1933 only composite Speed Post charges is paid in case of delay in delivery of domestic speed post article.”

The OP further argued that here in this case, no fraudulent or wilful act of the OP has been established.

Ultimately the OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

It appears from the case record that the OP submitted their written version, evidence-in-chief, written notes on argument, additional written notes on argument along with some documents in support of their case.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief. Both the parties submitted written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and those are compared with the original ones. Thereafter, respective Ld. Advocates for both parties made oral arguments in support of their case.

 

 

 

Heard Ld. Advocates for both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In the instant case, the complainant booked an article (a letter) through speed post at Suri HPO vide article No. EW751141341IN dated 28/04/2016. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the OP/Department of Post, India and the OP/Department of Post, India is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP/Department of Post, India, has Suri HPO which is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 28/04/2016 and lastly on 05/04/2016 and the case has been filed on 22/05/2017 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant is eligible for the examination for the post of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service. Thus, he posted the application along with demand draft of Rs. 700/- through speed-post on 28/04/2016 at Suri HPO.

Thereafter, the complainant received back the said envelope on 04/05/2016 with an endorsement “Receiver Refused”, with an initial signature with date 02/05/2016.

It appears from the postal track consignment of article No. EW751141341IN as filed by the complainant that the article in question was booked on 28/04/2016 at 10:32:13 at Suri HPO destination Kolkata GPO. Item bagged from ICH Sainthia for NSH Kolkata Airport on 28/04/2016 at 22:52:10. Bag received NSH Kolkata Airport on 29/04/2016 at 16:29:29. Then bag is dispatched to ICH Sainthia on 29/04/2016 at 16:40:42 instead of Kolkata GPO. Item received ICH Sainthia on 01/05/2016 at 4:18:04. Then, item was received by NSH Kolkata Airport on 02/05/2016 at 03:03:54. Then Bag was dispatched to Kolkata GPO on 02/05/2016 at 04:10:12. Delivery was Attempted: but Refused on 02/05/2016 at 16:50:00. At last, item was returned to the complainant on 04/05/2016.

From the above information from the postal track consignment it is as clear as day light that the OP/Department of Post, India unnecessarily re-sent item dispatched from NSH Kolkata Airport to ICH Sainthia on 29/04/2016 at 16:40:42 instead of Kolkata GPO. Thus, it takes more time to reach the article before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Accordingly, the item was refused by Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta as the last date for receiving the said application was 30/04/2016 by 4:30 pm.

However, inspite of what may be stated to the contrary, there is glaring example of negligence, wilful or otherwise on the part of OP/Department of Post, India in the matter of delivery of the consignment in question. It is not explained why the OP/Department of Post, India re-sent back the impugned item again to Sainthia. This wrongliness killed much time unnecessarily; otherwise the item very well could have been delivered to the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta right in time.

We find from the decision reported in Superintendent of Post Offices Vs. Upvokta Surakshya parishad vide (1997) 1 CPR 11 as: “Not doing something one ought to do is also wilful act and liability may be fixed on the postal department and its functionaries.”

So, point No. 3 is decided against the OP/Department of Post, India.

Point No. 4:

The petitioner has prayed for Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and damage; and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.

Practically speaking, there is no yardstick to measure the quantum of damage in such type of case. Because, there is no objective standard to this effect. It is not certain that there was sure chance of success of the petitioner in the examination for which he applied. But, obviously there was glimpse of hope in the mind of the petitioner while depositing the envelope with the post office. The unsuccessful attempt of the OP shattered into pieces that hope of the petitioner resulting in his sheer mental agony.

So, it is our view that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- may not be inappropriate in this regard.

This case has been dragging for more than 6 years. Keeping it in mind we award Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 48/2017 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.                             

The OP/Department of post, India is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) as the compensation to the petitioner/complainant as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

The OP shall pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP/Department of post, India within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP/Department of post, India failed to comply the decree the complainant would be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.