BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM  (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
 

 PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA)                 Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President

               Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Friday, the 16^th day of November, 2012

CC. No. 06 of 2012

Between:

Smt. Nalla Priyanka W/o Rajeshwar @Raju,

D/o N. Priya Charan Rao, Age: 20 years,

Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 4-7-120/1/2,

Prashanth Nagar Colony, Sangareddy town,

Medak District.                                                             …….Complainant

And

1. The Head Post Master,

Head Post Office, Sangareddy town,

District Medak.

2. The Regional Director,

Staff Selection Commission,

Southern Region, II Floor,

EVK Sampath Building,

College Road, Chennai – 500 006.                      ….opposite parties

      This case came up for final hearing before us on 19.10.2012 in the presence of Sri N. Chandrashekar Rao, Advocate for complainant, Sri N. Shiva Kumar, Advocate for Opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 called absent, upon hearing the arguments, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

1. .      This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that the complainant Smt. Nalla Priyanka, aged: 20 years, submits that she applied for the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination, 2011. She made her application online on 25.08.2011. Opposite party No. 2 issued the admission certificate vide roll No. 8002001875, seat No. 8012525and posted the call letter on 17.11.2011 from Chennai. The test was to be conducted on 04.12.2011 at 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the venue Sree Hanuman Vyayamshala High School, Sultan Bazar, Near old Royal Theatre, Hyderabad – 500 095. Unfortunately the complainant received this letter on 07.12.2011. It seems that opposite party No. 2 intentionally posted the letter with an ante date seal in order to cause great loss to the complainant and defeat her aim. The opposite party No. 1 may also have had intentionally delivered the letter on a later date.

            She further submits that upon receiving the said letter (dt. 07.12.2011) she contacted the opposite parties, but they clearly informed her that there was no delay on their part and have not taken any steps to solve the matter. Due to this illegal act on their part and on the part of their officials the complainant had to sustain mental pain and agony and lost her chance for taking this test for which she invested her time. All her hopes are in vain.

             The complainant issued a legal notice on 10.12.2011 on opposite party No. 2 to initiate necessary steps in this regard and provide compensation and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- for losing her academic year. Legal notice was served on opposite party No. 1 on 16.12.2011, but they did not reply. Hence the complainant submits her complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite party No. 1 to provide the chance for taking of the said exam, award compensation and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of the proceedings may be awarded and any other order passed under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2.     The opposite party No. 1 resisted the claim of the complainant by filing their version to the following effect:

              The opposite party No. 1 filed their version and submits that this complaint is not tenable under law or on the facts and liable to be dismissed in limini. They denied all the allegations and averments made their in except those that are specifically referred to and admitted herein.

           The opposite party No. 1 submits that he is not aware that the complainant had applied for the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination 2011 through online on 25.08.2011 and the opposite party No. 2 had issued Admission Certificate vide Roll No. 802001875, Seat No. 8012525 and sent the Call letter on 17.11.2011 intimating that the test will be conducted on 04.12.2011 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Sree Hanuman Vyayamashala High School, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

          The opposite party submits that upon receiving the complaint and on perusal of the documents furnished and the stamp impression on the letter it was noticed by them, that opposite party No. 2 sent a letter by ordinary post from Chennai to the complaint. The said letter was received by opposite party No. 1 on 05.12.2011 and this is evident from the stamp available on the said letter. This was explained by the Head Postmaster, Sanageddy to the complainant and the complainant issued a legal notice dated. 10.12.2011 on opposite party No. 2 to provide compensation and damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- .

                  Moreover, opposite party No. 1 submits that on receipt of this complaint an enquiry was made and the statement of the beat postman on that day was recorded. The same is filed. Opposite party No. 1 submits that on enquiry it was noticed that the letter was received by the Head Post Office, Sangareddy on dt. 05.12.2011 from Nampally and it was delivered on the same day. The Post Man dropped the letter in the House of the addressee as no one opened the door. Opposite party No.1 further submits that there is no delay or deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable for any compensation claimed by the complaint. They further submit that

the present complaint is filed against them in collusion with opposite party No. 2 for wrongfull gain. It is pertinent to submit that as per Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the opposite party No.1 is not liable for the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. The Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is reproduced hereunder: “Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay of damage – The (Government) shall not incur any7 liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, 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”. In the above said circumstances opposite party submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant and  therefore prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs in the interest of justice and equity.

3.             Opposite party No. 2 have never made any representation nor did they reply to the legal notice dated: 10.12.2011 although they received it. Hence opposite party No. 2 is deemed exparty.

4.              Evidence affidavit filed on behalf of complainant and marked Exs. A1 to A6. Opposite party No. 1 also filed evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1. Written arguments of complainant filed. Opposite party filed a memo to treat evidence affidavit as written arguments. Oral arguments also advanced by both parties. Perused the record.

5.      The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to.

               The fact that the complainant applied on line for the CHSLE on 25.08.2011 and that opposite party No. 2 issued the admission certificate vide  Roll No. 8002001875, Seat No. 8012525 – Ex.A3. The complainant was aware that the exam was to be held on 04.12.2011 between 2: 00p.m. to 4:00p.m. at Sree Hanuman Vyayamshala High School, Sultan Bazar, Near Old Royal Theatre, Hyderabad – 500 095. Unfortunately she did not receive the hall ticket in time. It was delivered to her house only on 07.12.2011.

              Ex.A3 – The admission certificate shows the postal mark as on 17.11.2011 at Chennai, but the postal mark on delivery at Sangareddy is dated 05.12.2011.

             The opposite party No. 1 only filed Ex. B1 – the letter of the postman who delivered the letter.

            Undoubtedly there has been an inordinate delay in delivering the letter and the complainant was unable to take the exam as she had not received the hall ticket. The said letter was only sent by ordinary post from Chennai and owing to unforseen circumstances the letter was delivered at a much later date.

               The citation is taken from the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad  F.A. No. 50 of 2010 against in CC. NO. 31/2009 DCF, Medak at Sangareddy

                   i). As per Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part I the government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, mis-delivery, 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. The India Post office is exempted from all responsibility.   

                  10 In Dr. Jamini Devi’s case (supra) the National Commission held that Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act deals with individual liability of the postal employees and an officer of the post office may be held liable for any loss, misdelivery, delay or damage if it is proved that he has caused the loss, misdelivery or damage by some fraudulent act or willful act. Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:

                   “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 in so far as such liability may in expres terms by 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.”

                   11.  The National Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in union of India Vs Mohd Nazim reported in AIR 1980 SC 431:

                As a branch of revenue, there are great receipts, but there is likewise a great surplus of benefit and advantage to the public,    owing to the postal department.

               The exceptions are few, therefore no relief can be granted to the complainant on the allegation of loss or non-delivery or delayed delivery. 

                    15. The net result of the discussion of the aforementioned orders is that an article sent through postal department has to be insured and it has to be sent through registered post and in such case and if the article damaged due to willful act of employee of postal department, the postal department would be liable to compensate the loss suffered by the sender of the article.

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this  16^th day of November, 2012.

                        Sd/-                                            Sd/-                     

          FAC PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER             

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                       For the opposite parties:-

-NIL-                                                                        -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                       For the opposite parties:-

                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                         LADY MEMBER

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.Parties
3. Spare