BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Thursday, the 13th day of August, 2009
CC.No. 58 of 2008
Between:
Kum.D. Soumya Bhavani D/o Laxman Rao,
Aged: 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Near Nageshwara Temple,
Ramayampet village and Mandal,
Medak District.
….. Complainant
And
1. The Sub Post Master, Sub Post Officer,
New Bus Stand complex, Sangareddy, Dist. Medak.
2. The Superintendent, Post Offices, Head Post Office,
Medat at Sangareddy.
3. The Chief Post Master, General of A.P.
G.P.O. Circle, Abids, Hyderabad.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 22.07.2009 in the presence of Sri. Ch. Prakash, advocate for complainant and Sri. N. Shiv Kumar, advocate for opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, upon hearing the argument on both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to provide Job of Postal Assistant to the complainant and to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and damages of Rs.50,000/-.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant studied upto intermediate and undergone training in computers in the year 2007. The opposite parties issued a general notification for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistants. Last date for receiving applications was 31.05.2007. The complainant applied for the post and sent an application through registered speed post bearing No. EE684612108 at Sangareddy New Bus stand complex, Post office with all the connected documents in favour of the opposite party No. 2 on 30.05.2007 at 11:50 a.m. The complainant also sent one more application in favour of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam on the same date and time through registered speed post bearing No. EE684612139 which was received by the addressee in the very next date i.e. 31.05.2007 at 3:00 p.m. But the speed post sent in favour of opposite party No. 2 reached the addressee on 04.06.2007 from Sangareddy New Bus Stand to the Office of opposite party No. 2, which is at Sangareddy itself. The same is admitted by opposite party No. 2 in the reply notice dated. 30.05.2008 which clearly shows the negligence of opposite parties. The complainant is very intelligent and eligible for the post of Postal Assistant. He secured 94% marks in intermediate and he has computer knowledge and there were fair chances for him to get the job. Due to the negligence of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 the application was not received in time, even though it was sent from Sangareddy on 30.05.2007 at 11:00 a.m. and even though another application sent to Superintend of Post Offices, Khammam on the same date and time was received on 31.05.2007 at 3.04 p.m. Due to negligence on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 the complainant lost opportunity of job of Postal Assistant. Opposite party No. 3 is the controlling authority as such he is also made a party to the proceedings.
2. The complainant is a helpless poor girl having no source of income. Her future is damaged as she lost opportunity of securing the job of Postal Assistant due to which her career is affected. The complainant made enquiry and came to know that the job was provided to the daughter of one of the employees of the opposite parties who has secured 62% marks only. The opposite parties, with a malifide intention, managed not to issue call letter to the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service on their part, so they are liable to provide job to the complainant and pay examplanary damages, compensation and costs to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties resisted the claim by filing version of opposite party No. 2, which is adopted by opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 under an endorsement of their advocate at the foot of the version of opposite party No. 2. The version of opposite party No. 2 is to be following effect:
4. It is true that notification for recruitment of postal assistant was issued through paper publication and the last date for submission of application was 31.05.2007. It is also true that the complainant applied to opposite party No. 2 for the said post and posted the said application on 30.05.2007 through speed post article No. EE684612108N at Sangareddy New Bustand Complex Post Office and he has also sent a speed post Registered No. 684612139 to Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam on the same day and the speed post sent to opposite party No. 2 is delivered on 04.06.2007 at Sangareddy in the office of opposite party No. 2. It is denied that there is negligence on the part of opposite parties. Mails other than speed post articles booked at Sangareddy will be dispatched to Nampally sorting office at Hyderabad, as there is no separate district mail office to Medak District at Sangareddy. The speed post articles booked at Sangareddy will be dispatched to speed post center Hyderabad. The speed post article No. 684612108N addressed to Superintendent of Post office Sangareddy and speed post article No. EE684612139 N addressed to superintendent at post offices Khammam, posted by the complainant at Sangareddy New Bustand Complex, were received at Sangareddy Head Office on 30.05.2007 for further disposal. The said speed post articles were dispatched by Sangareddy Head office to S.P.C.C. Hyderabad on 30.05.2007. All Medak District Mails are handled in the mails bags dispatched through RTC Buses. The mail duly sorted by Nampally sorting office will be dispatched to all the post offices in Sangareddy division The speed post articles No. EE6846121081N was received at Nampally from the S.P.C.C. Hyderabad on 31.05.2007 duly entering serial No. 133/152 of speed post list of S.P.C.C. Hyderabad to Nampally sorting. The said article received at Nampally sorting was dispatched there to Sangareddy Head office duly entering the registered list dated 01.06.2007 and the same is received at Sangareddy Head Post office on 02.06.2007. Since 02.06.2007 was Saturday, which is administrative holiday and 03.06.2007 was closed holiday to opposite party No. 2 the above speed post article of the complainant was delivered to opposite party No. 2 on 04.06.2007 promptly. The speed post article No. EE6846121391N posted by the complainant addressed to SPO’s Khammam was dispatched from Sangareddy Head office to S.P.C.C. Hyderabad on 30.052007 and it was further dispatched by S.P.C.C. Khammam and delivered to the addressee on 31.05.2007. The complainant addressed a letter dated 11.08.2007 with a request to issue call letter to her for the post of Postal Assistant. As her applications was received on 04.06.2007 i.e. after due date for receipt of application, her request was rejected by the DPC and no call letter was issued to the complainant. The complainant filed Application No. 15/08 before the Hon’ble Central Administration Tribunal(CAT), Hyderabad on 08.01.2008 . The Hon’ble CAT disposed of the said application at the stage of admission by its judgment dated. 04.04.2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants dated 24.07.2007 and 11.08.2007 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and take consequential action within one month. Opposite party No. 2 addressed a letter to the complainant vide letter CPT/MIS/2007-08, dated 13.05.2008 stating that her application was received by opposite party No. 2 on 04.06.2007 after last date for receipt of application i.e. after 31.05.2007. She was also informed that as per special instructions to the applicants under clause 6(g) of prospectus part A for recruitment of Postal Assistant and sorting Assistant applications received after due date are liable to be rejected, whatever may be reasons for delay and no intimation will be sent in this regard. The selected candidate who has secured 69.28% was asked to attend for verification of original certificates but he failed to attend. The next meritorial candidate who has secured 61.68% was offered the said post. She attended for the verifications of originals and she was selected to the said post but she expressed that she was not willing to work in the deportment and hence the said post is not filled up during this recruitment process. The said post is vacant and it will be filled up in future soon after the receipt of orders from opposite party No. 3. There is no deliberate delay or negligence of the opposite parties. The department is taking every care, at all the stages and in the instant case also the article was delivered with every care. Knowing the same very well the complaint is filed to harass the opposite parties. Opposite parties denied that the complainant lost opportunity to securing the job and her future and career are affected due to negligence of opposite parties. It is also denied that the job was provided to the daughter of an employee. It is further denied that with malifide intention the opposite party managed not to issue any call letter to the complainant. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence the opposite party are not liable to provide job, or to pay exemplary damages, compensation and costs to the complainant. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. Complainant’s evidence affidavit is filed to prove the contents of the complaint. Likewise evidence affidavit of opposite party No. 2 in filed to prove the version filed by him. Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Written arguments of the complainant filed. Opposite party advocate filed a memo to treat the evidence of the opposite parties as written arguments on their behalf. Oral argument of both sides heard. Perused the record.
6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for a direction to the opposite parties to provide job of Postal Assistant to her and for further directions to pay her compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and damages of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for in the complaint?
Point:
7. The case of the complainant is that on 30.05.2007 she has registered a speed post letter at the post office situated in the new Bus Stand complex at Sangareddy, addressed to opposite party No. 2 which is also situated in Sangareddy itself. It is her further case that she sent an application in the said speed post cover for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant and the last date for receipt of applications was 31.05.2007; but the said speed post cover was delivered in the office of opposite party No. 2 with abnormal delay on 04.06.2007 and the said application was rejected on the ground that it was received after the last date for receipt of application . Therefore, according to the complainant, in the above stated circumstances there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence she is entitled for the job applied for and also for compensation and damages of Rs.1,50,000/-. The opposite parties admitted booking of the speed post letter in Sangareddy New RTC Bus Stand Complex Post Office on 30.05.2007 and that it was delivered in the office of opposite party No. 2 which is situated in Sangareddy itself on 04.06.2007. According to the opposite parties as per their procedure speed post articles were sent to Hyderabad and they were dispatched from their to Sangareddy and it was received on 01.06.2007 and the letter of the complainant could not be delivered on 02.06.2007 as it was an administrative holiday and 03.06.2007 as it was Sunday, therefore it was delivered on 04.06.2007. In gist the defense of the opposite parties is that the delay is due to the usual procedure and it was not deliberate therefore no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed to them and hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed in the complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. As the facts are not in dispute between the parties, reference to the various documents marked by the complainant as Exs. A1 to A8 is not necessary, therefore they are not being referred.
9. When two speed post letters are posted at Sangareddy on the same date and time, one addressed to Khammam and another to Sangareddy itself and when both were sent to Nampally, Hyderabad office as per the practice of the opposite parties, the cover addressed to Khammam was received by the addressee in the very next date whereas the cover addressed to Sangareddy was received by the addressee four days there after. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that there is train facility from Hyderabad to Khammam but there is no train facility from Hyderabad to Sangareddy therefore the cover sent to Sangareddy address was sent through RTC bus and because Saturday which is administrative holiday for opposite party No. 2 and because Sunday is a public holiday the cover was delivered to the addressee at Sangareddy on 04.06.2007 therefore the delay, if any, is due to the procedure of the opposite parties and therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. It is to be noticed that both the speed post letters are posted at Sangareddy addressed to Superintendent of Post offices, Khammam and Sangareddy. Khammam is at a distance of more than 250 km from Sangareddy and the letter posted to Khammam address on 30.05.2007 was received by the addressee on 31.05.2007 i.e. the very next day, where as the distance between Sangareddy and Hyderabad is about 50Km and RTC buses ply between Sangareddy and Hyderabad almost through out the day for every half an hour or one hour. But the letter posted to Sangareddy address was received on 04.06.2007. The explanation offered on behalf of the opposite parties for th0e delay in delivering the letter to the addressee at Sangareddy is totally unacceptable. We do not agree that the delay was occasioned because of following procedure. The circumstances speak of the negligence on the part of the opposite party. Even though no evidence is placed before this forum by the complainant to show within how many days a speed post letter has to be served on the addressee, in the circumstances discussed above the letter posted to opposite party No. 2 must have been served on him in the very next day i.e. 31.5.2007. Therefore delivery of the speed post letter on 04.06.2007 clearly shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for the same.
11. The request of the complainant to give a direction to the opposite parties to provide her the post of Postal Assistant for which she has applied, cannot be accepted because it is a service matter and various considerations have to be made by the opposite parties before taking a decision to appoint or not to appoint a candidate. In our opinion awarding compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and also pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this litigation within one month from the date of this order. The other claims of the complainant are negatived. The opposite parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 13th day of August, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
A
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
