West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/100/2018

Bipin Jhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The SR. General Manager, Gum and Shell Factory - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant,  Bipin Jhan, a permanent resident of Vill. and P.O.- Nagari, P.S.- Suri and Dist.- Birbhum, had  sent an application for his employment to OP No. 1 through speed post from Suri Head Post Office/OP No. 2 on 24/08/2015 vide Receipt No. EW541119326IN.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant came to know the application status from the website of OP No. 1 and it showed that the application was rejected as the application was not reached in time.

            It is the next case of the complainant that the last date for application in question was 24/08/2015. The OP No. 2/Post Office replied against the application of the complainant dated 12/02/2016 under the R.T.I. Act that the application in question was reached in proper address on 25/07/2015 and the addressee also received the same.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that any one of the OP members gives him a false statement.

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and he prayed before the Commission for:-

 “(i) Rs. 90,000/- as compensation.

  (ii) Rs. 6000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

  (iii) Rs. 3,500/- as litigation cost.

  (iv) Rs. 450/- as cost of R.T.I application.”

                                                                        (1/4)

 

            It appears from the case record that the OP No. 1 did not file their written version and thereafter they did not contest in the consequent stages of this case. OP No. 2/Post Office filed their written version, evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument in support of their case.

Complainant submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes of argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant and those are compared with the original ones and found to be same. Thereafter, OP No. 2/Post Office and the complainant made oral argument in support of their case.

            Heard both sides.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant  booked a speed post letter vide Receipt No. EW541119326IN dated 23/07/2015. Thus, the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 2/Post Office and the OP No. 2/Post Office is the service provider as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP No. 2/Head Post Office, Suri which is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose on and from 12/02/2016(which is being presume from the date of first application to the OP No.2 as not specifically mentioned in the plaint) and the case has been filed on 12/10/2017 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

            After pursuing all the documents as available in the case record, this Commission is of the view that the jurisdiction of this Commission is confined only within the relationship between the consumer

                                                                        (2/4)

 

 

 

and the service provider. Here, the service provider as per Sec. 2(1)(0) of the C.P. Act, 1986 is the OP No. 2/The Superintendent of Post Officer, Birbhum in terms of booking of the concerned Speed-Post in question from the Suri Head Post Office, and the consumer of that service is the instant complainant/petitioner under the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the said Act. But, the OP No. 1/The Sr. General Manager, Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata-700 002 is in no way related under the jurisdiction of this Commission as service provider to the complainant.

            It appears from the complaint dated 12/10/2018 of the complainant that his main allegation is that the concerned heard copy of the application to the post of Fitter address to the OP No. 1 did not reach in time and thereby it got rejected. On the other hand, it is the further complaint of the complainant that as per the R.T.I. reply with regard to the matter from the part of the OP No. 2 it revealed that the said application for employment reached on 25/07/2015 to the OP No. 1, whereas, its last date was 24/08/2015. Hence, according to the complainant anyone of the said opposite parties is submitting false statement that resulted in deficiency in service towards him.

            However, it further appears from the documents that the delivery status of the concerned speed post bearing No. EW541119326IN as submitted by the OP No. 2, the article in question was delivered in bulk of total item No. 10 to the OP No. 1 on 25/07/2015 which has been duly evidenced by the Postal Department in support of delivery of the same.

            The complainant has raised a complaint in his plaint that when he accessed the website of the OP No. 1 to get his application status for the employment it showed the reason for rejection of his application due to non-reaching of the herd copy of the application timely to the OP No. 1. But, the complainant did not submit any document in support of that website information. The complainant has adduced the copy of R.T.I. application dated 12/02/2016 addressed to the Sr. General Manager, Gun and Shell Factory/OP No. 2 where from it is found that in response to the quarry as to when the hard copy of the application concerned was received at their and, it has been stated, “No such specific record is available at this state.” We are surprised enough that having no record does not mean the article was not delivered at that material time.

            The only inconsistency which has been found by this Commission after perusal of the R.T.I. application and replies from the part of the complainant and officials of the OP No. 1 that the P.I.O. and Jt. General Manager of OP No. 1 by his letter dated 23/11/2016 has informed that after completion of the recruitment process, the applications had been destroyed. Whereas, in reply to the RTI application of the complainant dated 12/02/2016 the PIO of OP No. 1 informed by letter dated 19/03/2016 that they had no

 

                                                                                    (3/4)

 

 

 

specific record available as to the receipt of the hard copy of the complainant at that stage after conducting the examination on 06/03/2016. Hence, such destruction of application within only 13 days of conducting the examination , may be a question to adjudicate against the OP No. 1, and the complainant may approach to proper Forum if so advised.

            Now, in adjudicating the question of deficiency in service fromn the part of the OP No. 2/Post Office if any, this Commission is of the view that they have performed their service properly by delivering the article in question in the office of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 has duly produced the delivery status thereof before us and the same has been found to be sealed and signed by the official of the OP No. 1. Such document is of more value than a track report of Postal Consignment though it has been alleged by the complainant that the OP No. 2 could not able to submit the same. So, there is no deficiency in service in this case from the part of the OP No. 2/Post Office. The entire dispute of the instant case actually revolves around the act of the OP No. 1 if any which is not the matter of adjudication of this Commission.

Point No. 4:

From the above discussion it is proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2. So, the complainant is not entitled to get the claim as prayed for in the instant case.

            In that analogy, we are sorry not to accede to the prayer made by the complainant in this case. So, the case fails.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 100/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.