DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.340 of 27.11.2007 Decided on : 31.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Shweta D/o Sh. Sham Sunder, R/o Near Railway Station, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The General Post Office, Near Tehsil Complex, Bathinda-151 001 through its Superintendent.<br /> 2. Chief Post Master General, Department of Post and Telegraph, Sector 17, Chandigarh.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. S.K Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. M.R. Gupta, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> HIRA LAL KUMAR, MEMBER:-<br /> 1. Complainant is M. Sc. (Mathematics), B.Ed. Department of Education, Secondary School, Chandigarh had invited applications for the employment of Teachers. Last date for receipt of applications for the post of Teachers at Chandigarh was 30.9.2007. She was eligible for employment as Teacher. Applications alongwith other documents were to be sent through registered post to Departmental Selection Committee (T), Department of Education, Secondary School, SCO No. 130-131, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. On 26.9.2007, opposite party no. 1 was approached by her. It was inquired by her that if she had sent application through registered post on 26.9.2007, it would reach the addressee at Chandigarh on or before 30.9.2007. Concerned official had informed that registered letter reaches Chandigarh from Bathinda within three days. She was assured that her application would reach Chandigarh well before 30.9.2007. Accordingly, she had sent her application for employment as Teacher to the concerned authorities on 26.9.2007 at 12.35 noon through opposite party No. 1 through registered post vide receipt No. RL B 7323 by paying Rs. 37/- in cash. Registered cover containing her application and other documents was received by her at her residence at Goniana Mandi on 4.10.2007 with the annotation “Refused”. It did not reach the addressee on or before 30.9.2007. This has caused her irreparable loss. She could not receive any interview letter for consideration of employment as Teacher. She has lost a chance for employment. As per her academic career, she was sure to be selected as Teacher (Mathematics). Her hopes to get employment have been dashed to the ground. Opposite parties are deficient in rendering services. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay her Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for non-joinder of Union of India as party; intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such, the dispute should be relegated to the civil court; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum; she has not come with clean hands and she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. It is further averred by them that Department of Posts has no liability for loss, delay and damage to any postal article in the course of transmission as per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. On merits, they admit that complainant had booked one registered letter on 26.9.2007. No assurance was given to the complainant for delivering it within three days. In the normal course, it takes 4/5 days to reach such letter at Chandigarh from Bathinda. Registered letter had reached the destination on 4.10.2007. Receiving office had refused to receive it. Accordingly, it was returned to the sender. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Shweta complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of postal receipt No. 7323 dated 26.9.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopies of envelope (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.5), photocopy of advertisement (Ex.C.6), photocopy of proforma (Ex.C.7), photocopy of demand draft dated 26.9.2007 (Ex.C.8), photocopy of application (Ex.C.9) and photocopies of her certificates (Ex.C.10 to Ex.C.21).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. D.S Jammu, Superintendent.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 6. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that registered cover containing application and other documents was sent by the complainant through registered post and postal receipt No. 7323 dated 26.9.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.2, was issued. Registered letter was received back by her at Goniana Mandi with the annotation “Refused” as it did not reach the addressee on or before 30.9.2007. Since it did not reach Chandigarh in time and complainant has not received any interview letter for the post of Teacher, there is deficiency in service. Opposite parties have averred that registered letter generally takes 4/5 days in reaching Chandigarh. When it is so, registered cover sent by the complainant should have reached Chandigarh on 30.9.2007. Due to the negligence on the part of the officials of the opposite parties, registered cover did not reach the addressee. Opposite parties cannot take shelter of the provisions of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as they have not rendered requisite services. Complainant has lost chance for employment as Teacher.<br /> 7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in view of provisions of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Moreover, no period has been prescribed under the rules for delivery of such letter.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Onus to prove the case is upon the complainant. So far as the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. D.S Jammu. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us any statutory rule or regulation according to which limitation has been provided for delivery of such registered letter. No-doubt, opposite parties have averred that a registered letter generally takes 4/5 days in reaching Chandigarh. This period of 4/5 days cannot be termed statutory for the delivery of such letters. It is mere an estimation in general and not in particular. In this case, registered letter was taken to the addressee for delivery, but its receipt was refused. Accordingly, it was sent to the complainant and she received it on 4.10.2007 at her residence at Goniana Mandi, meaning thereby that registered letter was taken to the addressee prior to 4.10.2007. It was for the complainant to call for the record of the opposite parties to prove as to on which date the registered letter was taken to the addressee. She did not muster courage to summon the record of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that there is some delay in delivering registered letter to the addressee, section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act comes into vogue. It reads as under :-<br /> “6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage- The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar 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 wilful act or default.” <br /> 9. This section clearly exempts any liability of the postal authorities in case of delay etc. unless loss or delay is caused fraudulently or through wilful act or default of its officials/officers. Evidence that officials of the Department of Posts has caused delay and that too, fraudulently and willfully is missing. Plea of the complainant that registered letter should have reached the addressee on 30.9.2007 is not supported by any law or rules. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no negligence on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Hence, crux of the matter is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> 31.1.2008 Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br />