District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 4/2015
Subhankar Mandal
S/o Sasti Mohan Mondal.
Vill.: North Chakbhabani (Near Tridhara Club)
P.O & P.S.: Balurghat, Mob-8961176171.
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur-733145 …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Malda Division, P.O & Dist. Malda.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices
Dinajpur Division,
PO: Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.
3. The District Judge, Malda
P.O: Malda
Dist. Malda. ………………Opposite Party / Parties
For complainant …………… - Shri Bidyut Kr. Roy, Ld. Adv. &
- Shri Anish Das, Ld. Adv
For OP Nos. 1 & 2 …………… - Shri Achintya Kumar Das, Ld. Adv.
For OP No. 3 ………… - Smt. Krishna Sarma Sarkar, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 06.01.2015
Date of Disposal : 14.08.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 14.08.2015
The complainant filed this case with the allegation that he applied for Gr. D post in Malda District Judgeship and he took preparation for appearing in the said Gr.D recruitment examination. After lapse of several months the complainant received an envelope on 18.10.2014 wherefrom it was revealed that the scheduled date of examination was fixed on 31.8.2014. On scrutiny of the envelope it was found that on the envelope postal stamp of Malda Post Office dt. 25.8.2014 is visible and on the back portion of the said envelope postal stamp of Balurghat Head Post Office dt. 18.10.2014 is visible. The complainant is a permanent inhabitant of the said address and due to such negligent act of the OPs the complainant did not get the admit card in time and he could not appear in the examination.
Since the complainant could not appear in the said examination due to fault on the part of OPs the complainant has become mentally perturbed and prayed for compensation of Rs. 5 lakh from each of the OPs.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 have contested the case by filing written version and denied all the material allegations made by the complainant. It was specifically stated by the OP No.1 that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or relief from the OP No.1 because it was an ordinary letter and there is no responsibility or liability from the side of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 denied the allegations that there was no laches on their part.
OP No.2 also denied that there was no fault on the part of OP No.2 and claimed for the compensation by the complainant is excessive one and on the basis of vague allegation the said compensation has been sought for which is not at all maintainable and to claim any compensation from the OP No.2.
Contd…P/3
OP No.2 stated that the letter was sent on ordinary post, therefore, the OP No.2 could not be held responsible in receiving the letter after the date of examination and accordingly the OP No.2 had prayed for dismissal of the instant case.
OP No.3 district Judge Malda filed written objection whereby it was stated by the OP No.3 that the complainant dose not come under the purview of the CP Act, 1986, as consumer under OP No.3. OP No.3 denied that due to negligent act of the OPs the complainant did not get the admit card in time and he could not appear in the examination. The office of the sender and residence of the addressee both are situated within the district town and permanent place of municipal limit and there is no reason for delay of delivery of any letter to the addressee.
It was specific stated by the OP No.3 that the admit cards for the purpose of examination in the post of Gr.D was held on 31.8.2014 and admit cars were dispatched from Kolkata through nodal agency I.I.P. (Indian Institute of Psychometry) entrusted for conducting the examination process. No admit card was issued on behalf of the OP No.3. It was informed by OP No.2 that the candidates who did not receive their admit cards may contact with the office along with photograph for issuance of duplicate admit cards within office hour on 28.8.2014, 29.8.2015 and 30.8.2015. Such notice was duly uploaded in the website of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and District Judge’s notice board, Malda as well as in the website of Malda District Judgeship. If the complainant was serious to appear in the examination he could easily procure the admit card without waiting for the admit card which he received through post. He had option to get a duplicate admit card from District Judge’s Court, Malda and he could have appeared in the said examination. In view of the said fact the OP No.3 had prayed for dismissal of the case.
Contd…P/4
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties it has to be decided on the following points mentioned herein below :-
- Whether the complainant receiving the letter after the date of examination?
- Was it sent by an ordinary post?
- Was there any responsibility of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in delivering the letter of an ordinary post to the complainant in belated manner?
- Had the complainant no other option to get the admit card without receiving the admit card through post?
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 & 2?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and repetition of the facts.
It was argued by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that the complainant belongs to a poor family and he applied for appearing in the examination for recruitment of Gr.D post in the Malda District Judgeship the date was fixed on 31.8.2014 and he received the admit card through post on 18.10.2014 i.e. after lapse of about 2 months from the date for appearing in the said examination. Since the letter reached after the expiry of the date of examination the complainant could not appear in the said examination for which he had become mentally upset and as such the complainant has prayed for compensation to tune of Rs.5 lakh each from OP No.1 & 2.
In support of the said contention the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant brought to my notice the photocopy of envelope containing the admit card after the date of examination and as such Ld. Lawyer has emphasized that OP Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the delay in delivering the letter to the complainant and accordingly they are to be held guilty and they will have to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakh each.
Contd…P/5
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.1 argued that the letter was received by OP No.1 on 18.10.2014 and it was delivered to the addressee i.e. to the complainant on selfsame day, if that be the so what was the laches on the part of OP No.1. That apart the letter was sent by an ordinary post for which the post office cannot be held responsible for delay in delivery of the letter. In support of the said contention Ld. Lawyer cited the Indian Post Office Act, wherefrom it appears that the Govt. shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, miss-delivery or delay etc., as such no officer of post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.1 cited a case disposed of by NCDRC where it was held that sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, exempt the employees for delay in delivery the letter and other laches on the basis of the said case the Ld. Lawyer emphasized that the OP No.1 cannot be held responsible for the delay.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.2 submits that the letter was sent by an ordinary post for which the OP No.2 cannot be held responsible and Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.2 also relied on sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act. Accordingly, the Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
To counter said ruling the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant relied on ruling as reported in 2008 (4) CPR 410 (NC) where it was held that the letter was sent by registered post and same was returned to the complainant with endorsement not found the complainant claimed for compensation was contested by post office relying on sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act. But the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and State Commission upheld an order awarded compensation of Rs.12 lakh. The National Commission did not interfere with the said order and revisional application was dismissed.
Contd…P/6
Ld. Lawyer for the District Judgeship Court, Malda argued that there was a notice board though if any candidate does not receive the admit card before the date of examination 3 days were given to the candidates to receive the duplicate admit card by producing the photograph in the office of the District Judge for issuing of duplicate admit card. The complainant did not avail of that opportunity in case of any examination held by District Judge for recruitment of any staff the entire process of recruitment is to be shown in the High Court website. The complainant did not avail of that option to get the information on which date the examination was going to be held. There was gross negligence on the part of complainant himself, therefore the complainant cannot claim for relief from this Forum.
Considering the submission of respective parties it appears that the complainant applied for post for recruitment in the District Judges Court, Malda, in Gr. D post and he got the information through letter that the examination was held on 31.8.2014, but he received the admit card from Post Office Balurghat on 18.8.2014. Thereafter the complainant expressed his grievance to the local post office asking the post office as to why delivery was committed delay in sending the admit card to him. Since he did not get any positive reply he had to file this case.
From the materials in record it is found OP No.1 Superintendent of post office Malda Division wherefrom the letter was dispatched and the letter was sent through Balurghat post office and the envelope filed in this case clearly speaks that the letter was received by OP No.2 on 18.10.2014 and the same was received by Balurghat post office on 18.10.2014 as an ordinary letter. The OP No.2 served the letter upon the addressee on selfsame day. Therefore, it cannot be said that the OP No.2 had committed any default in serving the letter upon the complainant. The OP No.1 clearly stated in their written version that the
Contd…P/7
letter was an ordinary letter which was posted at Malda post office and sent the letter as per address and in this regard there is no negligence from the side of OP No.1.The complainant did not file the envelope wherefrom it can be shown as to on which date the letter was posted. In absence of any such document and whenever letter was sent by an ordinary post and as per sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, the OP No.1 cannot be held responsible for the delay if delivery committed by OP No.1 in sending the letter to Balurghat. Considering the said fact it is crystal clear that the OP No.1 also did not commit any error in sending the letter to the addressee which was served upon the complainant through Balurghat post office OP No.2.
The complainant subsequently made District Judge, Malda as OP No.3 who submitted written version whereby it was specifically stated that and the admit cards were dispatched from Kolkata through nodal agency I.I.P. (Indian Institute of Psychometry) entrusted for conducting the examination process. No admit card was issued on behalf of the OP No.3. The OP No.3 also stated that notice was issued in advance by the OP No.3 informing that the candidates who did not receive their admit cards may contact with the office along with photograph for issuance of duplicate admit cards within office hour on and from 28.8.2014, to 30.8.2015. The said notice was uploaded in the website of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. The complainant did not avail of that opportunity either to get duplicate admit card or to detect through High Court website to ascertain the date of examination. The complainant himself committed mistake for which he cannot say the OPs committed fault or there was deficiency in service from the side of OP Nos. 1 & 2.
So far as the ruling as cited by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that relates to the letter sent by registered post with A/D since this letter was sent by an ordinary post, sec. 6 of the Indian Post
Contd…P/8
Office Act. OPs cannot be held liable for committing any default on their part for which the complainant will be entitled to get any compensation from the OPs.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case since the case has made out by the complainant has no foundation to substantiate his claim since no negligent act was committed by the OPs so, we think that the case is not maintainable and accordingly the case is to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.4 of 2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(Sambhunath Chatterjee)
President
I concur,
……Sd/-..……
(S. Ganguli)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
