DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.37/18
Dr. Shiv Prakash Katiyar
112-E, Mahanadi Hostel
Poorvanchal Complex
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067. …Complainant
VERSUS
The Post Master
NIE Campus, S.O.
New Delhi-110016.
The Chief Post Master General (CPMG)
Office of CPMG, Department of Posts
Meghdoot Bhawan
New Delhi-110001. …Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution : 08.02.2018
Date of Order : 27.02.2023
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs for the inaction on the part of the OP, mental agony, harassment and loss of chances of selection. The complainant also seeks Rs.10,000/- towards legal cost and strict action against officers of the OP involved in irresponsible activity.
- It is stated by the complainant that he had sent an article through Speed Post ED225446094IN from NIE Campus on 11.08.2017, copy of which is enclosed as Encl-1.
- It is further stated that the article which he had sent through OP contained an application Form for the permanent Research Associate having scale of pay Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4600/- at Centre for Women’s Development Status against their advertisement No.1/2017 and he had provided complete addresses of the recipient as well of the sender.
- It is next stated by the complainant that keeping the importance of the article sent in mind the complainant checked the status of delivery of the article through tracking system of India Post, however, he could not find complete information regarding its delivery. Copy of the tracking status is enclosed as Encl-2.
- It is also stated by the complainant that he made an online complaint to the OP on 19.08.2017 regarding the non-availability of actual status of delivery of the article but the concerned authorities did not pay any attention of it. Thereafter, the complainant filed RTI application on 25.09.2017 to which he received five letters dated 17.09.2017, 12.10.2017, 01.11.2017, 06.11.2017 and 27.11.2017, the same are enclosed as Encl-5.1 -5.5.
- Since the complainant did not get satisfactory response he filed first appeal on 29.11.2017 in response of which he received two letters dated 06.01.2017 and 15.12.2017 wherein it was admitted that the article has been lost in transit that the complainant had a good chance of getting selected. It is also submitted by the complainant that he belongs to lower middle class family and has lost an opportunity of getting a permanent job which do not come everyday.
- OP in their reply have stated that the grievance of complainant has already been redressed by the OP and therefore he cannot be granted any relief as he has approached this Commission with unclean hands.
- The OP has further described the entire process of dispatch of the article in question and have stated that the article was returned to the sender but the receipt/disposal of the Speed Post article, in question, was not forthcoming hence it seems that the article under reference was misplaced/lost in transit. It is further stated by the OP that the complainant was requested to submit original booking receipt for compensation/settlement as per Department’s Rule on account of non delivery/loss of Speed Post article, however, the complainant has only furnished a photocopy of the booking receipt stating that he needs the original receipt for legal proceedings.
- It is further stated by the OP that as per departmental rules, the compensation payable in case of loss of domestic Speed Post article amount which is double of Speed Post charges paid or Rs.1,000/- whichever is less.
- On merits, most of the averments of the complainant have not been denied by the OP, however, it is stated by the complainant that the concerned postman could not succeed in delivering the article due to incomplete address on the said article and so the article was returned back to sender through NSH, New Delhi.
- The OP has placed reliance on Gazette Notification No.GSR 40(E) dated 21.01.1999 pertaining the Indian Post Office Act 1898 wherein it is limited that the Department of Posts cannot be liable for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article except to the extent the liability undertaken in express terms by the Central Govt. Therefore, the complainant is only entitled to compensation as per the said notification.
The complainant has filed its rejoinder and both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record.
The complainant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Union of India Vs. Amal Chandra Hore dated 06.01.2020, Posts and Another Vs. Akhilesh Grover dated 06.10.2017, Post Master Vs. Ripan Kumar dated 10.01.2020 etc. wherein compensation has been given to the complainant on account of deficient services of the OP. We place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC passed in Post Master Vs. Ripan Kumar dated 10.01.2020 wherein it was held that
The Postal Department adduced no evidence before the forum of original jurisdiction i.e. the District Forum, or made any averment or assertion in its appeal before the State Commission or in its memo of petition before this Commission, in respect of having conducted any inquiry or fact-finding to ascertain whether or not the delay in delivery was caused "fraudulently" or by "willful act or default" by its concerned officials. It belies reason that "fraudulently" or by "willful act or default" is summarily ruled out, without any inquiry or fact finding, and the exemption provided under Section 6of the Act 1898 is straightaway adduced in defence. If that has to be so, each and every "loss, misdelivery, delay or damage" has necessarily to be presumed to not having been caused "fraudulently" or by "willful act or default" by officials of the Postal Department. Such reading of Section 6 would be absurd.
……………
21. Section 6 does not intend to provide an unfettered licence to the officials of the Postal Department for inefficiency and mismanagement or to cause loss and injury to its 'consumer'(s).
It cannot be that the concerned officials of the Postal Department are immune to accountability within the Department, and also immune to accountability before a court / tribunal of law. And it cannot be that systemic improvements for future are not considered, and loss and injury to its consumers are treated as irrelevant and immaterial. Such reading of Section 6 will be totally irrational and misplaced.
the Revision Petition was then dismissed, with advice to inculcate systemic improvements and imbibe responsibility and accountability and with Cost of Rs. 1 lakh.
This Commission is of the view that the OP has been deficient in its services in not being to deliver the article at the address provided by the complainant and neither was able to return the same to the sender/complainant. The complainant has also lost chance of being successful in getting a permanent job due to the non-delivery of the letter/article. The OP has also been negligent in its services in not being able to provide redressal to the grievance of the complainant. Though the complainant cannot be compensated for the lost job opportunity however, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards lost article, lost opportunity and costs to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
