Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member:-<br /> <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act and its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant, a Blind person, had applied for a post under Group-C category against handicap quota on invitation of application by the Opposite Party No.1(one) through advertisement by payment of necessary deposit for the purpose. On receiving of application and after scrutinies of documents the Opposite Party No.1(one) sent the admit card to the Complainant, which reached him on Dt. 01/02/2007. But the Complainant could learn that by the date he received the admit card the examination had already been held on Dt. 28/01/2007. The Complainant contends that non-dispatching of the admit card in due time by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and therefore the Complainant not receiving the same in due time, debarred him from participating in the examination and consequently he could not make a good career for which he suffered huge financial loss, apart from mental pain and agony. For this alleged act of negligence, the Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only towards loss of opportunity to make a good career, Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only towards mental pain and agony along with a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version questions the jurisdiction of the present Forum to entertain the complaint on the ground that the advertisement for the post disclosed that any suit or case arising out of the same will be maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, alone. It also claims that, its office and functions at East Central Railway, Samstipur Division situates in the state Bihar and the Complainant being only one of the applicants, the complaint is not maintainable Under Section-11 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> It is further asserted by this Opposite Party that since no service was rendered or agreed to be rendered by this Opposite Party to the Complainant, he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the present complaint is not maintainable on that score.<br /> <br /> It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the examination for Group-C posts, for which the Complainant was an applicant, was held on Dt. 28/01/2007 and the admit card was despatched on Dt.22/01/2007 under postal certificate. It was also published in daily paper Times of India in English and Hindustan and Dainik Jagaran in Hindi, Dt. 25/01/2007 and Dt. 26/01/2007 that the candidates who had not obtained the admit card to approach the Personal Department or Divisional Manager Office, Samastipur, on Dt.27/01/2007 for Group-C and Dt.03/02/2007 for Group-D post for issuance of duplicate admit card. The information was also released in the Website of Indian Railway. In view of the above fact the allegation of the Complainant that he could not know the date of examination prior to getting the admit card is not sustainable. The Opposite Party also maintains that the post of Group-D category was meant for handicapped persons and as such the claim of the Complainant , who is visually handicapped, that he applied for Group-D category post is not maintainable. It denies that the admit card reached the Complainant on Dt.01/02/2007 or its responsibility for any delay which was caused by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three). This Opposite Party denies all allegation made against it by the Complainant as he never approached the office of the Opposite Party No.1(one) with the admit card for redressal of his grievances. It say that there is no cause of action for this complaint which it prays for dismissed of the complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) in their joint version contend that one unregistered letter addressed to the Ghanashyam Patel, C/o Sahadev Patel, At/Po Bhadigaon, Via. Bardol, Dist. Bargarh was received at Bhadigaon branch post office on Dt. 31/01/2007 and was delivered to the addressee on the same day and thus the departmental officers have caused no deficiency of service. They also say that as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, the Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless an officer of the Department has caused it fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The Opposite Parties filed extracts of such provision under Annexure-2 and Annexure-3. They pray for dismissal of the complaint against them with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed by them and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) questions the maintainability of the complaint in the present Forum on the ground that according to the advertisement for the post any case or suit arising out of the same would be maintainable before the Central Administrable Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. They also maintain that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is having office and functions at East Central Railway, Samastipur Division, Bihar and as such it is hit Under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. It is an established legal position that a clause or condition carried by an advertisement cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Law Agencies to provide relief to a consumer. The Department of Railway has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence is within its right to entertain this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) further contends that the examination for Group-C post was conducted on Dt. 28/01/2007 and the admit card was despatched on Dt.22/01/2007. It was informed through the daily paper Times of India in English and Hindustan and Dainik Jagaran on Dt. 25/01/2007 and Dt. 26/01/2007 that the candidates who has not obtained the admit card to approach the Personal Department of Division Manager Office, Samastipur on Dt.27/01/2007 for Group-C candidates. It was also released through Website of Indian Railway. This Opposite Party filed xerox copy of the said News Papers which carries the advertisement. Where as the Complainant files Original copies of Dainik Jagaran in Hindi Dt.25/01/2007 and Dt.26/01/2007 to show that such advertisement was not made by the Opposite Party No.1(one).<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) claims that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 as no service was render or agreed to be render by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and hence the Complaint is not maintainable. The Opposite Party No.1(one) cites 1996(11) CPR, page 155 (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which holds that examination fee for a post was not a consideration for hiring services and it is not a consumer dispute.<br /> <br /> The Complainant files cites 2005 CPR(1) page 258, 1993 CPR (2) 474, 1994 CPR (1) 269, 2006 NCJ, page 160, 2007 NCJ, page 436, 1996(1) C.P.R. 86 in support of his case. Amongst those citations 2006, NCJ, page 60 (NC) the plight of a passenger in the train who lost his luggage during the journey and dwells upon an altogether different nature of law and fact from that of the Complainant and is clearly not applicable to his case. All other ruling filed by the Complainant pertains to the sphere of education and academic pursuits of the petitioners and no parallel can be drown with the case of the present Complainant. But in 1996 (II) CPR, Page 155 (NC) filed by Opposite Party No.1(one) it has been held that not being able to appear for interview as the interview letter did not reach in time - Complainant cannot be said to have hired services for consideration – it was not a consumer dispute. This ruling is on a similar footing as that of the present Complaint.<br /> <br /> However the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 2007 NCJ, page 436 held that an “examination is a stopping stone on career advancement of a student” the Complainant pleaded that he applied for the post for advancement of his career. On this single score and in view of the above said finding of the Apex Court, the dispute is treated as a consumer dispute in relation to Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.1(one)'s failure to file the original copies of news paper informing the applicant to collect the admit card from the Office of Divisional Railway Manager, Personal Manager, Samstipur amounts to deficiency of service for which the Complainant failed to appear in the examination.<br /> <br /> We find no case against the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) who are exempted from any liability as alleged in the present complaint in view of the provision of the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and clause 84 of Post Office Guide Part-I.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.10,000/- towards compensation/cost with in thirty days hence, failing which the amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complainant allowed accordingly.