DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.30 OF 2022
Date of Filing : 29.07.2022
Date of Order : 28.11.2022
RajKishore Digal
S/O: Keshab Digal
AT/PO- Dangadikia,Ratanga
PS- Phiringia
Dist- Kandhamal. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
- The Post Master,
PO/PS- Ratanga, Phiringia
DIST- Kandhamal
2. The Superintendent,
Head Post Office, Phulbani,
DIST- Kandhamal …………………….. Opp. Parties
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sahoo & Associates
For O.P.No.1- Through A.R.
O.P No.2- Ex-parte
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President
Complainant Raj Kishore Digal has filed this case u/s 35 of the C.P Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not delivering his speed post letter within the stipulated period and praying therein for a direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.500000 towards deficiency in service, harassment and permanent loss with joint and several liability.
1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a physically challenged person who has lost his left leg. Being an unemployed youth he applied for the post of Supervisor-cum- Store Keeper for CRI Balangir. Accordingly his call letter was issued by the competent authority to attend interview on 04.05.2022 through speed post on 04.05.2022 from Bairoi post office in the District of Cuttack vide speed post receipt no- E0568495303IN. Even though the letter is supposed to reach him at an early date, the O.P No-1 delivered the letter on 27.05.2022 that is after a period of 23days for which the petitioner could not attend the interview and lost the opportunity to enter into Govt. service. As it happened due to the negligence of the OPs, he has prayed this Commission to make the OPs jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment and for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.500000/-,towards the loss sustained by him.
2. After receipt of notice, the OP No.2 appeared through his authorized representative and O.P No.1 did not appear. The OP No.2 filed his written statement.
The OP No.2 in his written statement admitted the fact that one speed post article bearing No. EO568493303IN was despatched by Swami Vibekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation, Training and Research, Olatpur Bairoi,Cuttack on 05.05.2022 in the name of the complainant which reached Ratanga post office on 07.05.2022. Miss.Harapriya Kanhar, Branch Post master Ratanga branch Post office who was managing delivery work of the BPO could not go for delivery due to network/technical issue of databag in the RICT device upto 08.05.2022. She attempted for delivery of the article on 09.05.2022 and 10.05.2022 to the complainant as he was absent and the door was locked. She delivered the speed post article in question on 11.05.2022 at 08:25:22 to one Sri Aswini Digal who happens to be a relative of the complainant under receipt Sri,Aswini Digal confirmed over phone that he has received the article from Miss.Kanhar on 11.05.2022 and handed over the letter on that date i.e 11.05.2022 to the complainant. His written statement could not be collected as he was staying outside, So O.P No.1 has discharged her duty properly by delivering the article as per the instruction contended in A+B of Ministry of Communication and IT Deptt of Post, New Delhi vide letter no-57/01/2010-BD and MD dtd 01.06.2010. Therefore, the OP No.2 prays for dismissal of the case as the speed post article has been delivered as per rule.
3. The Complainant in support of his case has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit along with the evidence of one Samuel Digal by way of affidavit.
4. The O.P No.2 has filed the copy of the postal track consignment, copy of the delivery sheet and copy of the office memorandom containing procedure of delivery of speed post articles containing one page only.
5. In view of the pleadings and counter pleadings of the parties the sole question before us is whether the OPs No.1 has delivered the article as per the rules and regulations meant for delivery of speed post articles?
It is alleged by the complainant that the speed post article was delivered to him on dtd 27.05.2022 through one Aswin Digal at about 11.10A.M that is after a period of 23 days from the date of despatch of the speed post article from the principal booking post office. On the other hand, the OP No.2 states that the Branch post master even though received the article on 07.05.2022, delivered the article to the Aswini Digal on 11.05.2022 at 08.25.22 as the complainant was absent and his house was locked. The Op No.2 has relied on the track consignment report of speed post articles and delivery slip of article. On perusal of track consignment, it is seen that the article in question reached Phiringia sub office on 07.05.2022 and was despatched to the Branch office. It is also seen from the same report that the item has been delivered on 11.05.2022. There is nothing on record to show what happened to the article from 07.05.2022 to 11.05.2022. Further it is seen that the complainant was absent and the date of delivery has been mentioned as 11.05.2022. But the date of delivery is conspicuously absent in the delivery slip of the article. Not a single scrap of paper has been filed by the O.P No.2 to show that the speed post article in question has been delivered to Aswini Digal on 11.05.2022. Further no evidence has been led by the Op No.2 to establish his claim that the article has been delivered to Aswini Digal on 11.05.2022. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence the pleadings of the OP becomes unacceptable in the eyes of law. On the other hand the complainant in his evidence in chief states that he received the speed post article from one Aswini Digal on 27.05.2022 at 11.10A.m. He further states that he was always present in his house and the postal officials have never come to his house to deliver the above said article at any point of time. This part of the evidence is supported by the corroborative evidence of one Samuel Digal who has categorically stated that he himself was present in his village on those days and the complainant was present in his house. From the evidence led by the complainant and the corroborative evidence of Samuel Digal, it is crystal clear that the complainant was very much present in his house and no postal official had come to his village or his house to deliver the speed post article. The evidence led by the complainant remains unchallenged, uncontroverted and un-rebutted. So from the documents on record and from the evidence led by the parties. I arrive at a clear conclusion that the OP No.1 has completely failed to discharge the duty entrusted to her is accordance with law and the rules and regulations mad there under and non delivery of the speed post article in time is willful negligence.
6. It is settled principle of law that where the OP in spite of service of notice does not appear or challenge the allegations raised against him/her, it is deemed to have been admitted by him/her. In the instant case the OP No.1 received the notice from this Commission but preferred not to appear or challenge the allegation raised against her, it is therefore deemed that the OP No.1 has admitted the allegation brought forward by the complainant.
7. As the OP No.2 has not filed a scrap of paper showing acknowledgement of delivery of the speed post article in question on 11.05.2022 and also has not led any evidence to that effect a clean case of deficiency in service is made out against the OP No.1 and he is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss sustained by the complainant, which is irreparable in nature and hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed against the O.P. No.1 exparte and dismissed against O.P No.2. The O.P No.1 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to a physically challenged person. The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00000/-(three Lakhs)only as compensation towards deficiency in service and harassment caused to the complainant. The O.P No.2 is directed to pay the amount to the complainant from the departmental funds first and recover the entire amount from O.P No.1 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh reported in C.J.D 2004, Vol-2 page-88. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount as awarded shall carry interest@ 9% P.A from the date of order till it is paid actually to the complainant.
Computerized and corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 28th day of November 2022.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
