J U D G E M E N T
1. The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that the complainant is practicing as an advocate since 15 years. There was notification No.PÀgÁD/DqÀ½vÀ-05/2013, which was published in the State Gazette dated 12-03-2013 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dated 09.04.2013, wherein applications were invited for the post of members of Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The complainant intending to be a member of the said Forum, sent his application on 09.04.2013 through OP-1’s Post Office under registered post No.RK66224164557 for which the complainant had paid Rs.39/- as postal charges. The said application sent through Registered Post must reach Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore on or before 12.04.2013 at 5:00 PM it being last date for receipt of applications. But on account of dereliction of duty by the OPs, the said post reached the destination on 17.04.2013 and on account of the same, the addressee refused to receive the said post for which the OPs are liable. Had the said post reached the destination within date stipulated the complainant would have got the post of the member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yadigir and would have earned Rs.12,000/- per month as remuneration for five years as it was five years assignment and the complainant’s financial position would have improved very much as he could not get the said member post, he was mentally disturbed and this was due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and due to this, the loss to the complainant was Rs.7,20,000/-. Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 30.08.2013 which was received by the OPs on 03.09.2013 and for the said notice OP-2 sent reply on 11.9.2013 stating that he would conduct enquiry and would give proper reply to the complainant. But so far as no such reply is received from him. Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The OPs filed the written version stating that the averments made in Para-2 & 3 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of the OPs. The complainant had sent registered parcel from Yadgir Station Post Office under No.RK6624165571N on 09.04.2013, but not under No.RK66224164557 as mentioned in the complaint. Hence it is denied. There was no assurance given to the complainant that article will reach within stipulated period nor they had not undertaken to deliver the above said article on 12.04.2013 before 5:00 PM. The said article received at Bangalore GPO on 17.04.2013 and sent for delivery but addressee refused to receive the said article. Hence it was returned to the sender with remark as refused. The OPs have not committed any negligence during the discharge of duty as alleged in the complaint. Hence the said allegation is denied. Thus the OPs are not responsible for any loss or damage caused to the complainant. The complainant had sent notice through his lawyer and acknowledged by OP-2 on 11.09.2013 and it was informed to the complainant that the matter was under enquiry. Since the enquiry in the matter was not completed, the final reply has not been given by the OPs. Now it is revealed that the registered parcel No.RK662416557IN booked at Yadgir Station Post Office on 09.04.2013 was dispatched to Gulbarga sorting office on the same day for onward transmission to Bangalore. The said article was not detained in the office of OP-1. However there is no negligence noticed on the part of the OPs, as such there is delay in transit to reach the destination point. As per the Post Office Act-6, Department is not responsible for any delay caused in delivery of the letters. The delay accrued is not intentional. Therefore the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. Complainant to prove his case, filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relief on 04 documents which are marked as Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-4. The OPs as their evidence, filed their affidavit, which is marked as RW-1 and got marked 02 documents as Exh.R-1 and Exh.R-2.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are;
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs against him?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
3) What order?
7. The findings on the above points are as under;
1) In the affirmative.
2) Partly in the affirmative.
3) As per final order for the following;
:: REASONS ::
8. Point No.1 :
There is no dispute with regard to the complainant’s case that on 9.4.2013, he through the OP-1’s post office sent one registered post cover for which receipt No.RK66224164557 (as per the respondents it is RK662416557IN) was issued by receiving postal fee of Rs.39/-, as the same is admitted by the OPs. It is also not in dispute that, the said registered post reached the destination on 17.4.2013 and was refused by the addressee for having reached late and hence was returned to the complainant.
9. It is the case of the complainant that, through the above mentioned registered post, he sent an application for the post of Member, Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which should have reached the Karnataka State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore on or before 12.4.2013 at 5:00 pm, as per the notification issued by the said Commission, but it reached the said address only on 17.4.2013 and not before 12.4.2013, due to which he lost the chance of being appointed as Member of the Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and thereby lost earning of Rs.12,000/- per month as remuneration for five years which amounts to Rs.7,20,000/- for which the OPs are liable.
10. On the basis of the above contentions raised by the complainant, what we would like to opine is that, due to late reaching of the application sent by him, the complainant lost an opportunity of being summoned for interview for the post of the Member, Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and it cannot be definitely said that, as contended by the complainant, that he would have been appointed as member and would have received remuneration of Rs.12,000/- per month for five years, because of appointment as a member depends on the complainant’s eligibility, competence and merit as well as his performance in the interview to be held for appointment of the said post. Therefore, the complainant cannot definitely say and assure himself of being appointed as Member of Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and would have earned Rs.12,000/- per month for five years. The said assumption and presumption is purely hypothetical. Therefore, on the basis of these “if’s” and “hopes”, we cannot come to the conclusion that the complainant lost Rs.7,20,000/- due to the OPs’ inability to serve the registered post to the addressee on the fixed date. On the other hand, they could be held liable only if it is found that, there is deficiency in service on their part.
11. Admittedly, the complainant sent the registered post through the OP-1 on 9.4.2013 and it reached the destination on 17.4.2013 and it took about 08 days to reach the destination. This shows that inordinate delay is caused by the OPs to deliver the registered post to the addressee due to which the complainant lost an opportunity to appear interview for the post of Member of Yadgiri District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
12. The OPs contended that as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, they are exempted from the liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage of any postal article in the course of transmission by post. However, this protection given under the said Act is not available, if it is found that any failure on the part of the postal authority was due to fraudulent act, willful act or default. Here in this case, we find that delivery of the registered post sent by the complainant after inordinate delay, definitely a default on the part of the OPs’ postal authority. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In this regard, we rely on the decision reported in 2010 CTJ 470 (U.N. Baradigar) held,
“Sec.6 of Indian Post Offices Act does not give the officials of the postal department unconditional protection in all cases of loss misdelivery, delay or damage to the postal articles”.
Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2 :
As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant and granting of Rs.2,000/- towards the same along with cost of the proceedings, will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.
14. Point No.3 :-
As per order below;
:: ORDER ::
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, from the OPs.
The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the OPs.
The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of March 2014)
