DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.08.2023
PER: SHRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI,PRESIDENT:
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is a qualified lady and wanted to be observed in any employment for her engagements and so also livelihood. The complainant coming to know from an advertisement regarding vacancy of Assistant in General category in Registrar, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) Bhubaneswar. The last date of receipt of application was 22.02.2019 and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.500/- through online, and sent the filled up application along with documents by Registered post to the Registrar, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) Bhubaneswar vide Regd. Post Receipt No: RO 890728321IN on 18.02.2019. The aforesaid Registered post was refused by the addressee from the postal authorities on 23.02.2019 for which the same returned to the Complainant with postal remarked that, “Refused to accept RTS” and the said registered item was received back on 01.03.2019. The complainant is being harassed submitted petition to the O.P. No.2 on 04.03.2019 to enquire the matter and take suitable steps regarding delay of service of registered letter. Inspite of receipt of the said petition dated 04.03.2019 the O.P. kept silent without intimating anything till date. Due to delay in proper service by the O.Ps, the complainant lost the chance of appearing the test for the post of Assistant so notified by the Registrar, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) Bhubaneswar causing harassment and mental agony. Instead of handing over on 21.02.2019 for which the addressee refused to accept resulting the complainant to appear the Tests etc. In addition to the above, the O.Ps have neglected the petition dated 04.03.2019 of the complainant and the complainant did not receive any satisfactory response till date. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay exemplary compensation of Rs.40,000/- for harassment and mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. The O.P.No.1 & 2 filed written version and admitted the fact that the complainant had booked a Registered Posts article at Head Post Office, Berhampur bearing No. RO890728321IN dated 18.02.2019. The O.Ps are not aware of the contents inside the Registered Post cover. On the same day of booking i.e. on 18.02.2019 the Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Berhampur had dispatched the said Registered post article to the Bhubaneswar Post office for delivery of the same. The addressee refused to receive the registered article as such the said registered article was returned back to the sender. These O.Ps are not aware of the reason for such refusal to receive the registered article by the addressee. It is evident from the remark given by the postman of the delivery posts office on the wrapper of the article under his dated signature on 23.02.2019 that the addressee has “Refused to accept RTS returned to sender. There is no negligence on the part of O.P.No.1 & 2 at all. The O.P.No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint petition. There is no deficiency of service on the part of these O.Ps at any point of time and the O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant. As per section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transaction by post, except in so far as such liability may in terms by undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided and no officer of the posts office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The Post Office is not a “Common Carrier” or a ‘involuntary or contractual bailee. It would be impracticable to impost on post, liability for liquidated damages for delay in delivery of letters. It is true that postage stamps have to be affixed but that is for augmentation of Government revenue. It is not in the nature of a price paid for the services. No contract was entered into between the complainant and the Post office at the time of booking of registered letter. In these connection two Xerox copies of citation filed. The O.Ps are not liable to pay damages and claimed by the complainant in the complaint petition. The O.Ps had not committed any deficiency of service. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case with cost in the interests of justice.
On the date of hearing Ld. Counsels for both the parties are present. Heard at length and perused the case records, and available documents. It appears that, the complainant has booked the postal article on 18.02.2019 to deliver at the address mentioned on the enveloped. The postal envelop reveals that, the complainant has scribed the detail of the application on the face of it. The complainant hired the service of the op being made trust upon it that the booked article should have reached at the addressee which was situated within 200kms from the place of posting within stipulated period in between 2 to 3 days from the date of posting i.e. by 21st February, 2019. Further the complainant alleged that, the OP has approached the addressee only on 23.02.2019 after four working days and when addressee refused to accept the same the postal article was returned to the sender with postal remark. In the instant case, contract is not required between the customer and the service provider at the time of booking of registered letter as because when a customer made trust upon the service provider and tender the exact amount expecting the proper services from the service provider is sufficient and on the point of time the amount was accepted and issued the money receipt is equal to accept the offer from the complainant by the service provider i.e., the opposite party no. 2 and it termed as contract. But due to dereliction of duty by the staff of the Ops, the booked article did not reached to its destination on time and the complainant deprived from appearing the Test, etc. The complainant became frustrated when the opposite party no.2 did not reply on her letter dtd:04.03.2019 which was duly acknowledged. In toto, the opposite party no.2 infringed the rights of the complainant. The main crux of the case is how long will it take for the registered postal parcel to reach the addressee written on it? In the instant case, the said registered article was reached after four days from the date of booking which violates the public declaration made by the opposite parties from time to time and it became deficient in services in accordance to the consumer protection act, 1986.
In the present case, the complaint is a consumer in accordance to the Section 2(1)(D)(Ii) of the Act 1986:
consumer means any person who
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
Section 2(1)(G) of the Act 1986:
deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986:
service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service
The opposite parties intentionally suppressed the material fact, the reasons behind the delay in delivery. In a similar case, the Apex Consumer Commission condemned the act of the Postal Department recourse to Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act and confirmed the order of the State Commission on imposition of the compensation Such conduct of the Postal Department, leads to irresistible conclusion that there was a willful default on the part of its official(s) concerned the commission said.
The attitude of the Postal Department is a deliberate attempt to hide the real reason for the wrong doing of its employee(s) in not delivering the letter within the norms prescribed by the Postal Department itself the commission bench headed by M Shreesha said.
The case of the complainant (Sharma) falls within the ambit of exception carved out under Section 6 of the Post Office Act. Having held so, and there being a clear deficiency of service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act and I am of the opinion that a reasonable compensation of Rs 25,000 awarded by the State Commission is completely justified it said.
And, irrespective of the above perspective, the mere fact that non delivery of the booked article on time falls within the meaning of deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986.
The Post Office took recourse to seeking protection of Section 6 of Post Office Act 1898 - Section 6 of the Act 1898 do not provide a blanket immunity. The onus to establish that the protection of section 6 can be sought in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Post Office, which onus it has not discharged in this case. And this has to be seen in conjunction with deficiency in service under the Act 1986 that is writ large in the facts and circumstances of this case.
In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on part of Ops and therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the Complainant, she needs to be compensated. In this connection, we would like to cite the authority of Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr reported in 1986-99, Consumer 1456 (NS) where it was observed as follows:
Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term; it signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus the provision of section 14(1)(d) are attracted if the person form who damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages, injury, if any, must flow from negligence.
So, in the instant case the Ops negligently acted and caused a legal injury to the complainant so she needs to compensate. As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by her due to negligence of the Ops and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation in the fact and circumstances of the case. However, she has not corroborated her claim by filling any cogent documentary evidence that her actual loss was Rs.40,000/-. Thus it appears to be hypothetical claim towards compensation. Hence, the Ops are liable to pay compensation for its arbitrary and illegal actions and negligence caused to the complainant.
In the result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against the O.P no.1 and dismissed against the OP no.2. The O.P no.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- towards mental & physical agonies and together with Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realisation and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. Further the OP no.1 is directed to strictly follow the prescribed time period for delivery of the registered postal articles to the addressee.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on dated 09.08.2023.
