REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petitions are filed against the judgment dated 11th December 2015 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal nos. 803 and 811 of 2013. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner/ opposite party on the averments that the Punjab Public Service Commission had given an advertisement for 143 posts of PCS (Executive) and allied services. The respondent applied under the general category and was assigned roll number 1591822553 for preliminary examination held on 19.12.2010 and the result was declared on 30.12.2010 on the website of the Commission and the respondent was a successful candidate. Approximately 28,000 candidates had appeared for preliminary examination and 2212 candidates were selected for the next level, i.e., the main examination which was only 8%. The respondent spent a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh for coaching at various centres. On 17.01.2011, PPSC issued a notice on its website mentioning therein that the application form and envelop (duly numbered) had been sent to the candidates. In case, any candidate did not receive the same by 25.01.2011, then the same could be collected personally from the office of the Commission on 27th, 28th or 30th January 2011 and last date for the receipt of the application form was 15.02.2011 till 05.00 p m. The respondent duly filled in the application form received by him along with fee of Rs.2,000/- on 08.02.2011 in the name of Secretary, PPSC and sent the same through speed post vide receipt number EPO 58208559IN, OP Code AA. PPSC issued another notice dated 09.03.2011 on their website that the main examination would be held on 24.06.2011. On 25.05.2011, PPSC displayed the list of ineligible candidates and the respondent’s name was there at Serial no. 2 and the reason was that the application form had been received late. The respondent visited the office of PPSC at Patiala on 26.05.2011 but they refused to intervene and said that they could do nothing in the matter. On further inquiry, it was found that his application form sent through speed post on 08.02.2011 had not been received by 15.02.2011, i.e., last date of receiving the application form. Therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition no. 9859 of 2011 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against PPSC and paid Rs.20,000/- to the advocate for filing the writ petition. The court in the interim order allowed the complaint for provisional admission. However, PPSC issued a press note dated 09.06.2011 declaring the postponement of the main examination till further orders. Thereafter, PPSC announced the new date for the main examination on 02.09.2011. In the meantime, the respondent was putting in hard work for preparing the main examination. The respondent also received the date sheet for the main examination along with the admit card. However, to his utter surprise/ dismay all his dreams were dashed to ground when Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition on 09.09.2011. The respondent filed an LPA before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and paid Rs.45,000/- to the advocate. The said LPA was also dismissed on 20.09.2011. Thereafter, the respondent filed an SLP no. 973 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and spent Rs.15,000/- for preparing and filing the same, but it was not allowed. 3. Citizen’s Charter India Post had declared the time for speed post within same circle within one or two days. Patiala where the speed post was to be delivered, was just 70 km from Mohali. He has come to know that the speed post was wrongly sent to Delhi, due to which the speed post was delivered in the office of PPSC only on 22.02.2011. This clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OPs. Hence, the respondent prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay Rs.82,528/- along with interest @ 18% from 08.02.2011 till payment, i.e., Rs.28 for speed post, Rs.2,000/- as fee, Rs. 20,000/- paid to Munish Singla, Advocate, Rs.45,000/- to Jagmohan Singh Bhatti and Rs.15,000/- for filing SLP, Rs.1.00 lakh along with interest, the amount spent on coaching Rs.16,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. The said complaint was contested by the petitioner/ OPs who filed their written version by taking preliminary objections that the postal department and its officers were exempted from any liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay/ damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and no officer shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless the same was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default according to section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and have referred the judgment of Post Master Imphalvs vs Dr Jamini Devi Dr Jamini Devi reported in 2000 (1) CPJ 28 NC. The complaint was barred under section 3 of the Act which provides additional remedy but not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. When the remedy was barred under Section 6 of the Indian post Act then the complaint was not maintainable. Postal Service was a sovereign function and it cannot be equated with common carrier. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent had got booked the speed post article on 08.02.2011. Further, now all information was available on the website and the respondent could have ascertained whether his application had reached to the Commission by tracking the same. The last date of receiving the application form was 15.02.2011 whereas the respondent himself approached the department only on 13.02.2011. Therefore, he was negligent in safe guarding his own interest. The article booked by the respondent was dispatched on the same day to National Speed Post Centre, New Delhi who further transmitted it to Patiala and it was delivered to the addressee on 21.02.2011. Therefore delay in delivery of article was neither fraudulent nor wilful act or default on the part of postal employee, as such there was no deficiency in service. It was denied that the respondent was allowed to sit in the examination by the Hon’ble Court. It was further reiterated that the postal articles were sent from Mohali to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Patiala where it delivered on 21.02.2011. Other averments in the complaint were denied. It was submitted that the complaint was without any merit and it be dismissed. 5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide its order dated 13.06.2013 while allowing the complaint observed as under: “9. So far as the provisions of the Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is concerned, it is limited to the liability against the employee as to the mis-delivery, wrong delivery, non-delivery of any parcel. So far as right of a consumer to be compensated due to deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the service provider, it is an independent and additional remedy as contemplated by Section 3of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is as under: “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. 10. Any statute providing immunity as to the liability of service provider does not come in the way of right of consumer to the compensated in terms in section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby Consumer Forum after satisfying about the deficiency in service may order to pay such an amount as compensation for any loss or injury including mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort suffered by consumer due to the negligence of the OP, therefore, the immunity under the law of any officer or of any Government authority is nothing to do with the concept of compensation to a consumer as to the negligence of the OPs in not maintaining standard of service. 11. The word compensation has been given very wide connotation by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh which includes the loss suffered by any consumer as to the injustice done to him, emotional suffering, physical discomfort suffered by him at the hands of the OP. Thus, we hold that Section 6 is not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc., on their part in discharge of their officials duties. Not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a wilful act of deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the act of the OPs in wilfully changing the destination of article from Mohali to Patiala and sending it from Mohali to Delhi and then from Delhi to Patiala caused delay in its delivery within the stipulated period of submission of application by the complainant in the office of PPSC, Patiala and thus clearly constitutes a wilful act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 12. Hence, the complaint is allowed with the directions to the OPs to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss and agony including litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the OPs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 21.12.2012 till its realisation.” 6. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum the petitioners/ opposite parties filed FA no. 803 of 3013 and respondent/ complainant filed FA no. 811 of 2013 for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission vide order dated 11.12.2015 while dismissing the FA no. 803 of 3013 filed by the petitioner and while allowing the FA no. 811 of 2013 and enhancing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.00 lakh observed as under: “…………………………We are of the opinion that the complainant had prepared for the examination and had undergone through a trauma when his application received late and he had to undergone to litigation although he was not successful. In our opinion some enhancement of the compensation is required because a sum of Rs.50,000/- is very petty amount keeping in view of the deficiency in service of OPs. In our view, Rs.1.00 lakh will be an adequate compensation. 14. Counsel for the appellants/ OPs has stated some terms that his case is covered under Section 6 of Indian Postal Act under which double of the speed post article or maximum to Rs.1,000/- can be awarded whereas we observed that the case of the complainant is not falling under the exclusion clause of 6, therefore, the compensation as stated by counsel for OPs cannot be allowed, it can be allowed it case the case of complainant is covered under Section 6 of Act. Accordingly, this plea cannot be entertained. 15. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Instead of Rs.50,000/-, the complainant will be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Other part of the order of the District Forum will remained as it is”. 7. Hence, the present revision petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Ravinder Pal Singh. None appears on behalf of the respondent hence, respondent is proceeded ex parte. 9. Mr Ravinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was not even a single averment in the entire complaint regarding any wilful act or default on the part of the petitioner or any official and hence, exception to section 6 will come into existence. 10. On 17.05.2017, Mr Ravinder Pal Singh, counsel for the petitioner had been directed to file an affidavit of a responsible officer regarding the enquiry held to establish the reasons for the delivery of the speed post article after 14 days of its posting. The affidavit has been filed by Ms Radhika Dhir, working as Supdt., of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division, Chandigarh. It has been admitted in the affidavit that: “the Speed Post Article no. EP58201859IN was booked by the complainant/ respondent on 08.02.2011 at 12.23 p m at post office, Sector 62, Mohali which was addressed to Public Service Commission, Patiala and was supposed to be dispatched for NSPC (National Speed Post Centre) Chandigarh, but as per the record the same was dispatched to Sector 55 Post Office, Mohali from the booking post office. Thereafter on 17.02.2011 the said article was received at Patiala from Delhi vide bag no. EPD000792414 and was delivered to the addressee on 21.02.2011”. 11. It is also admitted that no stage wise enquiry was possible in the matter since the concerned record had already been weeded out as the preservation period of the said record is six months as per rules. 12. Admittedly, as per the complainant, the complainant was tracking the speed post article but no information was available. Thereafter, the complainant went to the post office at Sector 62 to enquire about the same. He was advised to go to the main post office at Sector 17, Chandigarh and accordingly, the complainant had gone there to enquire about the speed post article. They asked for a written complaint and the same was given. In view of the above, it cannot be accepted that without holding any enquiry in the matter, the department is defending itself by stating that the enquiry is not possible due to the weeding out of the record which as per rules are to be kept for six months. 13. As mentioned in the written statement before the District Forum, the information regarding the speed post article is computerised hence, the defence of the petitioner that the records of the speed post article have been weeded out is not understood or acceptable. It is also clear from the reply that speed post is a premium business service of the department for which there is a higher tariff. The articles are to be delivered within a specified period. There appears to be no monitoring of the receipt/ dispatch and delivery of the speed post articles by post office concerned or any other authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that as per norms the letter should have reached Patiala within four days of its dispatch. However, the letter dispatched on 08.02.2011 was only delivered on 21.02.2011. The petitioner cannot take shelter behind Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act to absolve of its responsibility by merely stating that the respondent/ complainant should have kept track of the article on the postal website of the day today movement of the article. It is for the petitioner to render the service for their premium product of speed post. Hence, there is a clear cut deficiency of service on their part and the department continues to seek shelter under Section 6 of the Postal Act for its omissions and commissions in non-delivery of the article in time. Thereafter they have also not given any explanation as to why they did not monitor the speed post articles’ receipt and dispatch. Further, they have failed to take any corrective action on their own. They have also failed to explain why on receiving the written complaint about the said speed post article why no stage wise enquiry was ordered immediately to fix responsibility and take action against the concerned officials for the wrong dispatch and consequent delay in delivering of the said article. 14. In view of the above, I find that no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown which calls for any interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petitions are dismissed. |
