The instant case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint filed by one Mani Lal Ghosh under the Provision of Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and the said petition of complaint was registered before this Forum as Consumer Case No. 11/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a permanent resident of North Krishnapally  Bank Colony under the English Bazar Police Station Dist. Malda and he is a practicing advocate of Malda Court and is a Member of the Malda Bar Association.

From the petition of complaint it is further revealed that one Postman known by the name Kishore Mahato was a Postman of Beat No. XIII of Malda H.P.O. under whose jurisdiction the North Krishna Pally Bank Colony is situated.

The said postman came to the complainant residence for delivery of the registered letter addressed to his daughter Arpita Ghosh who is an Assistant Professor “Human Rights” of Rabindra Bharati University. When the Postman knocked the door of the complainant’s house for delivery of the letters the Nivedita Ghosh, mother of Arpita Ghosh produced before the said Postman the Voter’s Identity Card of Arpita Ghosh to receive the said letter. But the said Postman refused to deliver the letter to the mother of Arpita Ghosh a letter of Authority of Arpita Ghosh was executed in favour of her mother and said letter of authority was duly authenticated by the Post Master Malda Head Post Office, Malda. The further case of the complainant is that an Intimation Slip dt. 06.08.2011 in the complainant’s name a registered article No. 4571 came to the house of the complainant but the said registered article was not delivered by the said postman. On 29.04.2015 the said Postman again came to deliver a Speed Post article to the wife of the complainant which was addressed to Nivedita Ghosh. At the same time the said postman again refused to deliver the said speed post though the mother of Arpita Ghosh produced a letter of authority in her favour but the postal peon gave an intimation slip in this respect. On 09.08.2016 the said Postman came to the residence of complainant with a registered letter which was in the name of complainant and the said postman refused to deliver the same to his wife though the wife of the complainant showed the authority letter duly authenticated by Head Post Master, Malda. Finding no other alternative the complainant lodged a written complaint to the concerned authority of the Post Office but ultimately there was no fruitful result. Thereafter, the complainant has come to this Forum for deficiency of service and harassment for mental pain and agony.

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all material allegations as leveled against the Postal Authority contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. According to law and averments made in the petition are fake, indefinite and unjustified and not supported by law. The definite defense case is that if the addressee of a letter is not found the letter cannot be delivered to the person other than the addressee unless a valid authorization is given to receive the article addressed to the addressee.  The further case is that the complainant is a responsible and respectable person who is a practicing Lawyer of Malda District Court and he used to come Court from 10-00 A.M. to 05-00 P.M. so he should have give alternative address of Malda Court or made proper authorization to any person at his residence in front of the Postman enabling the Postman to make delivery of his registered letter. But nothing was done. The further defense case is that the Postman followed the delivery norms and the registered article was not delivered as no proper authorization letter was submitted.

On consideration the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.   

In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W-1 and cross examined and during trial the complainant has proved and marked the documents as Exts 1 to 8 as per exhibit list. On the other hand the O.P. did not adduce any evidence to its defence.

Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of O.P. through its postman.

:DECISION WITH REASONS:

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the instant case is not maintainable as because the letter was issued in the name of his daughter Arpita Ghosh but the said Arpita Ghosh has not filed the case. On behalf of Arpita Ghosh, Mani Lal Ghosh who happens to be the father filed the case. As such the instant case is not maintainable. On the other hand, the complainant himself argued that not only the letter of his daughter was not delivered but one registered letter in favour of the complainant was not delivered. As one letter was not delivered to the complainant after due authorization so the instant case quite maintainable. This Forum on perusal of the record it is also found that one registered letter in the name of Mani Lal Ghosh was not delivered by the said postman so definitely the instant case is quite maintainable. This Forum is also the same view with the argument as advanced by the complainant that this case was filed by the for non-delivery of the registered letter in favour of the complainant. The instant case has not filed only for non-delivery of letter in favour of his daughter Arpita Ghosh but also for non-delivery of letter in favour of complainant. The complainant further wants to argue that in order to show the nature of service rendered by the said Postman the reference has been given that the letter was not delivered to his address in favour of his daughter Arpita Ghosh.

Now next point is to be considered whether there was any proper authorization or not. On perusal of Ext.-3 it is found that one registered letter was addressed to Mani Lal Ghosh dt. 02.08.2016 and the letter of authority was duly executed by the complainant which has been marked Ext.-4. On perusal of the Ext-4 it is found that the complainant has given a authority letter addressed to the Postal Authority in which the signature of his wife Nibedita Ghosh was duly attested. Moreover, on perusal of the letter of authority of Arpita Ghosh it is also found that she authorized her mother Nibedita Ghosh to receive the letter on her behalf and the letter of authority was duly authenticated by the Post Master Malda P.O. and this is on 08.08.2012. It is not understood why the postman in spite of producing such authority did not deliver the letter. Though in the written version it has been mentioned that no authorization letter was produced but as and when we find that the letter of authority duly authenticated by the Post Master. Definitely the addressee will produce the same to receive the letter to avoid harassment. In this case the postal authority did not produce any evidence or did not examine the said postal peon to prove that no letter of authority was produced before him so that he can make delivery of the letters. The non-examination of the postal peon on behalf of the O.P. raises a strong suspicion as to the suppression of real fact. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. refers the Postal Office Guide Part -1. By submission the rules there is no provision for any compensation. According to the Rule -170 compensation may be given up to the limit of Rs.100/-. In the case whether the letter, packet or parcel or its content damage in course of transmission by post. But this is not a case for compensation on the ground of loss or damage in course of transmission. This is a case for deficiency of service on the part of Postal Authority. On perusal of record it is found that said postal peon in spite of producing the letter of authority did not adduce the registered letters / speed post etc. So definitely it is a deficiency of service. Now the next point is to be considered whether there will be any immunity under Sec. 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. But in the opinion of this Forum this in statue providing immunity is to the law of service provider does not come in the way of right of a consumer to be compensated under Sec. 14 (i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the Consumer Forum on being satisfied about the deficiency in service may order to pay such an amount as compensation for any loss, injury including mental agony and harassment. Physical discomfort suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the service provider.

In the opinion of this Forum, therefore, immunity accorded to any Officer or Govt. Authority has got nothing to do with the concept of compensation to a consumer when the negligence of the service provider is palpable part of reasonable state of doubt. In the matter Department of Post Vs. Gajanand Sharma with a revision petition No. 541 of 2016 of the National Commission it is observed that attempt of Postal Department was a deliberate attempt to hide the real reason for the wrong doing of his employees in not delivering the letter within the norms prescribed by the Postal Authority itself. So conduct of the postal department leads to irresistible conclusion that there was a willful default on the part of the officer concerned which is not disclosed and therefore, the case of the complainant falls within the ambit of the exception carved out under this of the said act. As it is found that the postal peon in spite of showing the letter of authority did not handover the letters. So definitely it is a clear case of deficiency of service u/s. 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Considering the facts and circumstances the complainant has been able to prove the case.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence,    Ordered that

the case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost. The complainant gets Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation for mental pain agony and harassment Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred Only) for litigation cost.

The O.Ps are directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of order failing which it still carry an interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of filing of this case. The postal authority is a liberty to recover the said amount from the salary of the postal peon for which the complainant suffered mental pain and agony. It is to be mentioned that initially the Postal Department will pay the amount as ordered. Thereafter the postal authority may recover the same amount from the postal peon from his salary after deducting the said amount as per law after giving a notice to that postal peon. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay.

 Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.