Complaint filed on: 19.03.2014

                                                                                                            Disposed on:10.08.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

 AT CHICKMAGALUR.

Complaint No.25/2014

Dated on this the 10^th day of August,  2015

PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B.,         ………PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, B.COM., LL.B.,          ……… MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA MAHESH, B.A.L., LL.B., …… MEMBER

COMPLAINANT:

Smt. K. K. Pushpalatha

W/o K. B. Somesh,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o Someshwara Nilaya,

T. B. Road,

Kadur Town,

Chikmagalur Dist.

 (By Sri. L. P. Sathish, Advocate)

                     V/s

OPPONENT:

1.The Sub Post Master,

Sub Post office,

2.The Superintendent of Posts,

Chikmagalur Dist,

3.The Chief Post Master General,

South Karnataka Region,

  ( Filed by DGP.,)

Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Sri Ravishankar, President.

-::: ORDER  :::-

1. The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Op 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in not serving   the RP cover to her within time.  Hence prays for a direction against Op 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:

The complainant is a practicing advocate at Kadur and earlier had served as a Lady Member at Chikmagalur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum past 10 years, and after completion of the said service she again  applied for the post of Lady Member as per the Notification issued by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in pursuance of the said application the selection committee had posted an interview letter dated:14.05.2013 vide RLAD No.011119641 and intimated the date of interview is fixed on 28.5.2013 at State Commission Bangalore. 

3. The said interview letter was not served to the complainant despite sufficient address.  Instead of service on her the letter was served upon some other person who is not connected to the complainant.  OP has served the said RP cover to the person who is neither a family member nor an authorized person to receive the article on behalf of complainant

4. Due to non supply of the interview letter well within time the complainant deprived a chance to appear before Selection Committee for the post of Lady Member.  The complainant suffered an opportunity of further appointment to the post of Lady Member at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum due to non delivery of the interview letter.  Hence OP 1 to 3 have rendered a deficiency in service in not serving the postal cover to the complainant and also serving the said letter to the third person.  Hence prays for direction against OP 1 to 3 to pay a compensation for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses as prayed above. 
5. After service of notice OP 1 to 3 appeared through their DGP and filed version and contended that they do not know that complainant was served as a Lady Member past 10 years before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chikmagalur.  They also do not know that she applied for the post of Lady Member as per notification of Hon’ble State Commission.

6. There is no relationship between consumer and service provider between complainant and OP 1 to 3.  The parcel issued in the name of complainant was served to one S. Raghavendra a Job typist at Civil Court complex, Kadur. OP 1 to 3 usually serve the post covers and articles of the advocates of Kadur court to the said person only and accordingly the article in the name of complainant also served well within time to the one S. Raghavendra and they have promptly rendered the service to the complainant.  There is no malafide intention to deny the service of article to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 to 3.  Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint.  Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint. 

7. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P-1 to P-6. OP 1 to 3 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2.

8.  Heard the arguments:

9. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our       consideration and decision:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service in not serving   the RP cover to complainant?

      ii)      Whether complainant entitled for any relief &

                What Order?

10.  Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: affirmative.

              ii) Point No.2: As per Order below. 

-:::  R E A S O N S  :::-

11.  POINT NO. 1&2 :- On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op 1 to 3 the complainant alleges that she applied for post of Lady Member at District Forum Chikmagalur and in-turn the said Hon’ble State Commission has issued Interview letter dated:14.5.2013 by intimating the interview date 28.5.2013 to appear without fail.  But the said letter was not served by Op in spite of correct address was furnished they have served the RP cover to unknown person who is not concerned to her family.  Hence she deprived an opportunity for appointment of  Lady Member to the District Forum. 
12. On contrary OP 1 to 3 have taken a contention that the post man usually serves the RP cover and other postal articles to the Job typist one S Raghavendra if it was addressed to the advocates and as usually the post in the name of complainant who is an advocate also served immediately after receipt of the article to the said person. Hence submits no deficiency in service. 
13. The OP 1 to 3 produced service record marked as Ex.R-2 to show that the article was served to the said S. Raghavendra which was addressed to the complainant. The said article was dispatched by Hon’ble State Commission on 14.5.2013 and the said article was served on said S. Raghavendra on 16.5.2013.  As such we noticed that the RP cover was served immediately after dispatch by the Hon’ble State Commission.  We found there is no delay in serving the postal cover to the said person.  Any how it is the duty of the OP 1 to 3 to serve the RP cover to the complainant personally if it is addressed in the name of complainant.  But it was not done so.  Hence we are of the opinion that OP 1 to 3 rendered a deficiency in service.  Further we noticed that complainant has not brought the said Raghavendra before this Forum to show when the postal cover was served on complainant.  The complainant also failed to establish that the said postal cover was received by her only after the date of interview.  But the document speaks that said postal cover was served immediately. 
14.  The learned advocate for OP 1 to 3 vehemently argued that the post man is serving the postal covers and other articles to the advocates since from so many years without any deficiency.  The advocates also authorized the said person to receive the articles and as a practice post man was served the said postal cover to the said person.  Hence submits no deficiency in service. 
15. Considering the fact that the post man has not  intentionally  avoided to serve the postal cover on complainant.  It is only mistake on the part of said Raghavendra who has not intimated the complainant about postal cover.  The complainant also not brought the said Raghavendra before this Forum to establish that it is the negligence on the part of OP 1 to 3. The complainant anyhow suffered an opportunity to face the interview on the date fixed as per intimation. Therefore OP 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service in not serving the postal cover personally to the complainant and OP 1 to 3 also liable to pay litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.   As such for the above said reasons we answer point No.1 & 2 in affirmative.
16. As such we proceed to order as follows: 

Date:30.06.2016

- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The Complaint against OP 1 & 2 is here by dismised.
2. Send the free copies of this order to both the parties.

               (B.U.GEETHA)                                    (RAVISHANKAR)      

                     Member                                                   President.       

             (H. MANJULA MAHESH)  

                             Member   

ANNEXURES

Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:

Ex. P-1: Interview intimation letter dated:14.05.2013.

Ex. P-2: Delivery slip issued b y OP on the application of RTI Act.

Ex. P-3: Office copy of the legal notice.

Ex.P-4 & 5: Two postal ack. due.

Ex.P-6: RP cover.

Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:

Ex.R-1: Authorization letter to give evidence.

Ex.R-2: Documents to show registered post were serve to one

              Raghavendra , Job typist.

Dated:10.08.2015                                                          President 

                 District Consumer Forum,

                                                                                     Chikmagalur.