Karnataka

Gadag

CC/25/2015

Ashatosh S/o Vasudev Kuber, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master General, Noth Karnataka Region, - Opp.Party(s)

M.A.Bijapur

22 Oct 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had applied for the post of Group-D with OP No.4 in Railway Recruitment Cell SWR, Hubli. The OP NO.4 conducted written examination for the said post on 09, 16, 23 and 30^th November and sent a call letter for written examination to the Complainant which was scheduled to be held on 02.11.2014. In this regard, OP No.4 sent the call letter through the postal department which had been posted on 10.10.2014. But the Postal Department had delivered the said letter to the Complainant on 12.11.2014, the examination scheduled on 02.11.2014 to the Complainant had already concluded, immediately the Complainant approached OP No.3 and enquired about the delay in delivery of the said letter thereafter the Complaint, the Complainant comply the matter to higher authorities of the postal department, but the OP NO.1 replied that mix-up of bag due to accumulation of heavy ordinary post the delay had occurred in delivery of the letter, further the Complainant submits that he had lost an opportunity of the recruitment and suffered mental agony and he had also spent Rs.500/- filing application etc. Hence, the Complainant had prayed to order the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation charges that Ops have made the deficiency in service.  Further, Complainant prays to order the OP NO.4 to reconsider to exercise his right to conduct the Written Examination for the Complainant.

4.  The Forum received a Complaint and heard on admission. The notice was ordered as such OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their Vakalat and Written Version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1 to 3:

The Op No.2 had denied the content of the Complaint and admitted partially the averment made in the Para No.5 and 6 of the Complaint and further stated that OP No.3 received the letter in question on 12.11.2014 and had been delivered to the Complainant on the same day and further submits that OP No.1 had enquired the matter and reply satisfactorily to the Complainant and admitted that OP No.4 had sent a call  letter through an ordinary post which neither have senders address nor the mode of service obtained from the postal department and also admitted that the inconvenience caused in dispatching the said letter and submitted that delay was not caused by OP No.1 and 3, this delay is caused by the Railway Authorities and OP No.4, during the month of September and October-2014 there were heavy receipt of ordinary post, this delay might have been due to mix-up of bags at Ahmedabad Railways. Hence there is a no delay on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 and prayed to dismiss the Complaint at the compensatory cost of RS.10,000/-.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.4:

 The OP No.4 has admitted that they have published a notification for the employment calling application from eligible candidates, the Complainant had applied and he was called for written examination on 02.11.2014. Further OP No.4 submitted that the list of eligible candidates for written examination along with the details of the Examination Centers was published on 20.10.2014 in the Website of Railways and also leading local and national newspapers in which it is clearly indicated that the eligible candidate who are not in the receipt of the call letter may obtained a duplicate call letter from Railway Recruitment Cell in-person and also the examination schedules had been published in a local and national newspapers.

 

5.      Further the OP No.4 submits that the Railway Recruitment Cell had extended all the reasonable opportunities for all the eligible candidates to appear for written examination as scheduled, the Complainant had failed to avail required information about his status by these facilities. Hence, OP No.4 had pleased to dismiss the claim of the Complainant against OP’s.

                          

6.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined as PW1 in his support of the allegation. The documents are marked as EX. C1 to C18. They are:

1) EX C1 Call Letter,

2) EX C2 Postal Receipt,

3) EX C3 Letter to OP No.1,

4) EX C4 Postal Receipt,

5) EX C5 Letter to OP NO.2,

6) EX C6 Letter from Postal Department,

7) EX C7 Reminder from Complainant,

8) EX C8 Letter from Postal Department,

9) EX C9 and C10 Legal Notice,

10) EX 11 to EX 14 Postal Acknowledgments,

11) EX 15 to EX 18 Paper Cuttings.

On the other hand, OP No.2 filed the Chief Affidavit of one M.G.Karan, The Asst. Superintendent of Post Office and swears on behalf of OP No.1 and 3 also. The following documents had been marked as EX. OP1 to EX. OP3 and these Exhibits are Correspondence Letters. OP NO.4 present before this Forum filed his Chief Affidavit and documents also produced before the Forum those are all marked EX OP4 (1) to OP4 (3). EX OP4 (1) Employment Notification Booklet, EX OP4 (2) Paper Cuttings 09 in numbers, EX OP4 (3) Letters from Navarangpura, Ahmedabad Post Office.

                                              

7.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Negative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

8.      POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

9.   The Complaint of the Complainant is that he had applied for a job in Railways for class-D Post with OP No.4, the OP NO.4 found the Complainant as an eligible candidate and sent a call letter for written examination, intimating the date of written examination i.e. 02.11.2014. The call letter was delivered to the Complainant on 12.11.2014 at Shirahatti by the Postal Department, the Complainant had alleged that OP NO.1 to 3 have not acted prudently in getting the mail dispatched properly, they have not delivered the letter to the addressee in reasonable time and after perusal of the letters documents produced by the Op’s clears that the Railways Recruitment Cell, Hubli have out sourced the job of examination process to the confidential agency which had dispatched call letters from Navarangpura Head Office in Gujarat Circle from where all the call letters have been dispatched to the eligible candidates. The Chief Post Master General, Gujarat Circle Ahmedabad replied to the mail of the Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad. The document marked as EX OP3 says that during the month of September and October-2014 there was heavy receipt of mail in Ahmedabad RMS and due to the shortage of man power for day to day receipt of the bag cannot be disposed-off on the same day on the same time due to inconvenienced caused by the Railway Authorities i.e. closure of the main transmission way at Platform No.1, the transmission was made through platform No.12 which was far away from platform No.1 more than 4,000/- bags was laying on the platform due to mix-up of  bags with the heap accumulated mails, this delay occurred.

10.    The OP No.4 have also extended all the facilities to the eligible candidates to know the dates of the written examination as Schedules and were also published in the local and national newspapers, the Complainant had not made any attempt in his own interest to know the status of job applied. The OP NO.4 have clearly indicated in the advertisement and in the website of the Railway Recruitment Cell, Hubli that the eligible candidates who are not in the receipt of the call letters for the written examination may obtained a duplicate call letter from Railway Recruitment Hubli (RRC) in-person. Those documents are marked as EX OP4 (2) Pages 09 in numbers clearly discloses that the Scheduled dates of examination had been published in the newspapers. So as the Complainant had not shown any self-interest to know the Schedule of the written examination from any other sources.

 

11.    The call letter had been dispatched to the addressee as they received by OP NO.1 to 3, the OP NO.1 to 3 have not delayed in dispatching the letter to the Complainant. Hence, Op No.1, 2 and 3 have not made any deficiency in their service. The delay had been caused by the postal department of Ahmedabad Circle and Railways Mail Service of Ahmedabad Region. The Complainant not made the necessary party to the proceedings. Since the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence, we answer to Point NO.1 in affirmative, Point No.2 in negative.    

 

  12.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is dismissed.
2. No order on cost.
3. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 22^nd day of October, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President