Haryana

Sonipat

CC/373/2015

Balram S/o Suraj Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Postmaster General India Post Ambala - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Kumar Dahiya

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.373 of 2015

                                Instituted on:07.10.2015

                                Date of order:21.07.2016

 

Balram son of Suraj Bhan, resident of H.No.1045, Gali NO.3, Dahiya Colony, Kakroi road, Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.The Post Master General, India Post, Ambala.

2.The Sub Post Master, Sub Post office, Industrial Estate, Sonepat.

3.The Post Master, NSH Gurgaon (Haryana).

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  PK Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  Nand Lal, ME, Head Post Office for respondents.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he being eligible and competent for the post of Fitter Instructor and after completing all the required formalities and by submitting all the required documents, has booked speed post on 12.8.2015 at 10.03 am with respondent no.2 vide receipt no.EH621667048 IN for its onward delivery in the office of Principal Govt. ITI Gurgaon upto 5 pm on 18.8.2015 .  On 3.9.2015 the complainant checked the status of his case of Net whether his name has been considered by the said institute for calling him for test/interview, then he found that the list of candidates who have been called for interview of the said post has been displayed on the net, but the name of the complainant was not found mentioned in the said list.  The envelope vide which the application and other documents were sent by the complainant to the Principal, Govt. ITI Gurgaon was returned to the complainant by the respondent no.2 on 4.9.2015.  After checking the track record, the complainant came to know that the bag containing the envelope of the complainant remained in the custody of the respondent no.3 from 16.8.2015 to 19.8.2015 and the same could have been delivered in the office of the said Principal, Govt. ITI Gurgaon much before 18.8.2015, but the same was not delivered by the respondent no.3 due to sheer negligence and carelessness on their part and the same was offered to deliver the said institute on 20.8.2015 which was refused by them as it was too late to be delivered by two days and due to this wrongful act of the respondents, the complainant has lost the golden opportunity of getting a job of Fitter Instructor and thus, the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lacs due to the deficient services rendered by them. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as the department is exempted from loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post.  The article in question was delayed in transit and not due to any bad intention of the official/department.  There is no deficiency, negligence or carelessness on the part of the respondents and  the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.  Thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and Shri Nand Lal ME Head Post Office on behalf of the respondents at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely. 4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs from the respondents as the respondents have delayed the delivery of article and due to this the envelope containing application and other documents of the complainant was not accepted by the Principal, Govt, ITI, Gurgaon and due to this deficient services on the part of the respondents, the complainant has lost the golden opportunity of getting a job of Fitter Instructor.

          In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the order dated 21.5.2013 passed in Revision Petition no.664 of 2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Head Post Master Vs. Neeraj Gupta  and order dated 4.7.2013 passed in Revision Petition no.2186 of 2013 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Suptt. Of Post office Vs. Mahabir Parshad.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as the department is exempted from loss, misdelivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post.  The article in question was delayed in transit and not due to any bad intention of the official/department.  There is no deficiency, negligence or carelessness on the part of the respondents and  the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          We have perused the Track Record of Consignment EH 621667048IN Ex.C4 very carefully and after perusing the same, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2, because they have sent the item on the same day i.e. 12.8.2015 to Rohtak.  On 13.8.2015 it was received at New Delhi RS TMO and was received on 16.8.2015 at 19:58:34 at NSH Gurgao, where the bag was opened. Thereafter the item was sent to Industrial Estate  SO Gurgaon on 20.8.2015 at 17:39:00 and by that time, it was not accepted by the addressee.

          So, in our view, there is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3, because the bag was received by respondent no.3 on 16.8.2015 and the item was delivered to the addressee on 20.8.2015 at 17:39:00, which refused by the addressee.  In our view, due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent no.3, the complainant not only lost the valuable opportunity of getting job, rather he suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment.  So, it is the respondent no.3 who is liable to compensate the complainant.  The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.5 lacs from the respondents, which in our view is on a very higher side.  However, we hereby direct the respondent no.3 to pay lumpsum Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.3 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)            (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF   Member DCDRF                  DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 21.07.2016