Karnataka

Gadag

CC/3/2016

Sri Mahadevappa B Honnappanavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of Post Office, Head Post Office and another - Opp.Party(s)

D.M Nadaf

20 Aug 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is a disable person and he had finished his apprentices training trade of fitter. He belongs to a very poor family and leads his life as a coolie. He was waiting for job to lead a better life.

 

3.      The Complainant applied for a job as a technician in H.A.L. Bangalore. The Company sent an interview letter as a eligible candidate for interview through his registered post bearing registered No.RL-RD-55781699 IN, the letter had been reached to the Harti Post Office on 04.11.2015 where the Complainant stays. But the Post master delivered the letter to the Complainant very late after the after the interview i.e. 09.12.2015.

 

4.      The Complainant who was eagerly waiting for the job felt very bad and shocked mentally while the Complainant questioned to the Post Master reason for the delay in delivering the letter. The Post Master agreed the mistake had been done by him and he had given a written letter that he is responsible for delay for delivering the letter, further the Complainant submitted that the Post Master had willingly delayed in delivery of the letter. Hence, the Complainant alleged that he had made deficiency in service.

 

5.      Further the Complainant had reported this matter to the Superintend of Post Office on 04.01.2016. The Superintendent stated that the delay of the delivery of the said article due to the negligency of Branch Post Master, Harti. Further action will be taken against him, but till date no action has been taken against the Post Master. Hence, the deficiency of service had been committed by both the Ops. The Complainant issued a notice to his counsel, but Ops have not replied. Further the Complainant prayed to Order, the OP to get a job to the Complainant and prayed to order the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with 18% p.a. and litigation charges of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs the Forum being fit.

 

6.  The Forum received a Complaint and heard on admission. The notices were ordered as such OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their Vakalat and Written Version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OPs:

The Ops have denied the averments made in the Complaint and also they have denied that the Complainant is an unemployed and applied for a job and late delivery of the letter he had sustained mental agony.

 

7.      Further, Ops stated that the OP No.2 had given in writing and admitted the delay of non-delivery of post is due to his fault, but delay was not intentional, the notice issued to OP No.2 have been answered by OP NO.1 on 30.12.2015 in which it clearly stated that action will be taken against the Branch Post Master, Harti. Further Complainant stated that the Job interview was fixed on 04.11.2015, The Op states that but the article in question was received at Gadag Sub Post Office, Harti Branch on 12.11.2015. The article itself had been received after the due date of interview, hence submitted that Complaint is not maintainable. Since the article is received after due date of interview, hence Ops have prayed to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

 

8.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in his support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

1) EX C1 Certified copy of ADHAR Card.

2) EX C2 Disable Certificate,

3) EX C3 Apprenticeship Certificate,

4) EX C4 Provisional Marks Card issued by Department of Employment and Training,

5) EX C5 Pay Slip for the month of December, 2010.

6) EX C6 Interview Letter,

7) EX C7 Legal Notice,

8) EX C8 Post Receipt

9) EX C9 Acknowledgement,

10) EX C10 Letter written by Branch Post Master, Harti,

11) EX C11 and C12 Letter from Department of Post,

12) EX C13 Postal Cover,

13) EX C14 HAL advertisements particulars.  

These documents have been marked as EX C1 to C14 in the defence of the Complainant. On the other hand, Ops filed the Chief Affidavit one Sri.M.J.Karan, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Gadag swear on behalf of OP No.2 also and following documents had been marked as EX. OP1 to OP3 on behalf of Ops.

1. Authority Letter given by Superintendent of Post Office EX OP1.
2. Detailed Track Event EX OP2
3. Letter sorting particulars EX OP3

            9.      This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

 

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2.   3.	Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief?   What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

10.    On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

                                                            R E A S O N S

 11.  POINT NO.1:  Document marked as EX C2 discloses that the Complainant is a 50% disabled person and he had finished his apprentices training from Ministry of Labour and Employment, and obtained a Certificate. The documents marked as EX C3 and C4 speaks it. The Complainant is unemployed waiting for a better job.

 

12.         Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore wrote a letter dated: 02.11.2015 to the Complainant informing that there are vacancies of technicians on tenure basis for a period of four years in various trades and inform to apply Online for a consideration of selection for an eligible post. The letter had been posted through Registered Post bearing No.RL-RD 55781699 IN, the letter was received by Harti Post Office on 12.11.2015. The same had been delivered to the Complainant on 09.12.2015 which had been delivered 28 days later. The Complainant alleges that the letter was sent by the H.A.L. was an interview letter which had been delivered to the Complainant after the due date of interview, but the letter produced before the Forum by the Complainant marked as EX C6 clearly discloses that the it is the letter just to notify the Complainant that there are vacancies and inform to apply Online on perusal of the document on record, it is very much clear that the letter in question was not an interview letter it is a notification for vacancies to be applied by the Complainant, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Gadag enquired on the Complaint of the Complainant and produced a report stating that the delivery of the letter in question had been delayed due to the negligency of the Branch Post Master, Harti. Moreover, the Post Master, Harti had admitted that delay in delivery was due to his negligency. The document marked EX C10 discloses it. The delay in delivery of the letter in question was due to the negligence of the Post Master, Harti. Hence, we are in an opinion that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2, as such we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.

     We relied upon citation in II (2013) CTJ 732 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The important points stated as below:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (b) – Post Office – Delay in delivery of speed post – Lost opportunity of getting job – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed Complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Inordinate delay in delivery of speed post article had cost an unemployed youth his chances for obtaining a job – Department is trying to get out by paying paltry compensation of Rs.20,000 to respondent – Petitioner would rather seek protection under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 – Petitioner should see whether it is justifiable and fair to deny paying a meager compensation of rS.20,000 to consumer by spending for more on legal expenses in fighting the case in different Fora - Costs”

            

The above citation is as ditto to this case.

13.    POINT NO.2:  In view of the above said discussion and observations we observed that the letter in question was not an interview letter, but it was a notification for a Job. The delay in delivery of the letter had caused missing a chance for obtaining a job. The delay is due to the negligency of OP No.2. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards negligency and deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the Complaint. Hence, we answer Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.

 

14.  POINT No.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.

 

2. The OP No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards the litigation charges.
3. Op No.2 is directed to comply this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the Op No.2 is liable to pay interest at 09% p.a., till realization.
4. The OP No.1 is directed to take action against OP No.2

5.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 20^th day of August, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President