DATE OF FILING : 12.2.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  28th  day of  September,   2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.55/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Roy C.K., S/o. C.T. Kuruvila,

  Chakkinchira House,  

Appappikada, Kochara P.O.,

Idukki – 685 551.

(By Adv:  Babichen V. George)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  K.S. Mohanan,

       Post Master,   Kochara P.O.,

       Kochara, Idukki. 

       (By Adv: C.K. Babu)

  2.  The Head Post Master,

       Head Post Office,

       Kattappana, Idukki.

  3.  The Sub Divisional Inspector of

Post Offices,

       Peermadu Sub Division,

       Peermadu P.O., Idukki.

  4.  The Superintendent of Post Offices,

       Idukki Division, Thodupuzha,

       Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant had applied for the post of Technical Assistant in a Semi Cetral Government organisation through National Employment service (Kerala), District Employment Exchange, Kattappana.  Complainant was already appeared in the interview and was successful, hence the complainant was directed to appear before the District Employment Officer, Kattappana, with his registration card and with original certificate for verification through their call letter in a post card 

   (cont.....2)

-  2  -

dated 20.3.2015.  The specific direction in that letter was to appear at the place mentioned therein on 27.3.2015 at 11 am.  But unfortunately, the said letter was brought to his knowledge only at 5.30 pm on the same day.  

 

The complainant further averred that on enquiry, he came to know that the said post card was directly delivered by the 1st opposite party, the employee of Kochara Branch Post Office to one Binoy Joseph at Green Valley Tea Factory outlet at Chettukuzhy town at about 3 pm on 27.3.2015.  Later on Binoy Joseph at about 5.30 pm, informed the complainant about this and the complainant immediately collected it from the said Binoy Joseph.  The said letter was send on 20.3.2015 and received it in the Vandanmedu Post Office on 23.3.2015. Kochara B.O. is a branch office of Vandanmedu Post Office and liable to serve it to the addressee on 23.3.2015 or on the next day itself.  Instead of that, the letter was retained by the postal authority with an ill motive.  The complainant further stated that, the letter is supposed to be delivered directly to the addressee at his home.  Instead of that, the opposite parties handled it negligently and thrown it to Green Valley Tea Factory which is about 2.5 km away from the complainant's residence.    

 

The act of the 1st opposite party is utter dereliction of his duty.  Due to this negligent act, complainant had to suffer a lot and it damaged his carrier life and future.  The address in the postal card is correct and the act of 1st opposite party resulted in loss of a permanent Central Government Job.  Verification of certificate was only a formality for the appointment and the complainant would have been definitely appointed, if he present in the right time.

 

The complainant further averred that the 1st opposite party is under the supervision of the 2nd opposite party.  The 3rd opposite party and 4th opposite parties are the superior officers and under the guidance and supervision of which 1st and 2nd opposite parties are acted upon.  But the opposite parties 2 to 4 are least bothered about the complaint submitted before them by the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensate to the complainant for the injuries caused to him due to irresponsible act of the 1st opposite party.  Alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties 1 to 4, complainant filed this 

    (cont.....3)

-  3  -

petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, opposite party contended that, the complainant has not availed the service of the opposite parties and is not a consumer.  The post card was sent by National Employment Service (Kerala), Divisional Employment Officer, Kattappana and he is the consumer who availed the service from the postal department and it is admitted that such a consumer relation exists between the Government institution and the opposite parties.  But the  sender has not raised any complaint against the opposite parties and there is no consumer dispute.  Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on this aspect alone.   

The opposite parties further contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, since the sender of the post card is a necessary party in this matter.  Moreover, one Mrs. Sobhana, the delivery agent of Kochara B.O at the time of incident is also not made a party in this petition.  She is also a necessary party to substantiate the allegation against her.  The opposite parties further contended that, the complaint preferred by the complainant herein before the opposite parties were considered and on the basis of that, a departmental enquiry was also carried out by the Inspector of Posts, Peerumedu.  As per the enquiry reports, Smt. Sobhana was the delivery agent, who received the post card and delivered it to the complainant.  As per her statement, the complainant's house was vacant, while she attempted delivery and since the post card required no signature or acknowledgement of the addressee unlike in the case of registered postal articles, she deposited the post card inside the house.  As per the enquiry report, no evidence was received in the enquiry to establish the complainant's allegation that the post card was illegally handed over to one Binoy Joseph on 27.3.2015.  The allegation of the complainant that the post card was delivered by K.S. Mohanan, the branch Post Master, Kochara Post Office was also found lacking proof in the enquiry.  It is also reported that the said Binoy Joseph had not co-operated in the enquiry and his act is suspecious.  Evading from the enquiry conducted by the department and not revealing anything by him, shows that the letter was not received by him as stated in the complaint.

(cont.....4)

-  4  -

Opposite party further contended that the post card was delivered by the delivery agent to the complainant.  The delivery agent and the post master have carried out their duties and there is no dereliction of duty as alleged.  The article in question is an ordinary post card and there is no record maintained for ordinary postal articles.  Compensation is not prescribed for ordinary postal articles as per the rules.  The post office cannot be equated with a common carrier.  The order from the department from any liability to the sender unless the liability is expressly provided in the Indian Postal Office Act.  In this case, sender is not at all a party.  Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

Evidence adduced by both the parties by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked.  Ext.P1 is the post card in question.  Ext.P2 is the copy of petition lodged by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the copy of petition submitted before the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices.  Ext.P4 is the reply from P.M.G.  Ext.P5 is the letter from superintendent of post offices.  One Binoy Joseph was examined as PW2.  From the defence side, copy of enquiry report and copy of petition submitted by the complainant are produced.  

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-  We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records and deposition of witness.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that because of the failure of the postal department, in not delivering the said article within the stipulated period, complainant lost his job and this caused very heavy loss and is badly affected his future.  He lost a job in a Central Government department.  The learned counsel further submitted that the failure of the postal department 

  (cont.....5)

-  5  -

in not delivering the article within 72 hours, as stipulated under the provisions of India Postal Rules and Regulations, a wrongful loss was caused to him, as he was unable to appear before the concerned authority of a Central Government department on a notified date and time and consequently lost the job, the complainant made representation to the opposite parties for adequate compensation, but having no success.

 

Allegedly, deficiency in service on the part of postal department in delay in delivery of article, complainant filed this petition praying for a direction to the postal department to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation cost.

 

The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties arised the allegation on the sole ground that in view of clear statutory provisions contained in section 6 of Indian Post Offices Act 1898.  In support, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, rendered in Revision Petition No.3591 of 2009, the Chief Post Master General and another Vs. Pooja Gupta (Against the order dated 11.12.2008 in appeal No.576/06 of the State Commission, Delhi).  It was assisted that, “service rendered by the post offices are mere statutory and there is no contractual liability.  Establishing the post offices and running the postal service, the Central Government performs a Governmental function and the Government does not engage a commercial transaction with the sender of the article through post and and charges for the article transmitted by post is in the nature of charges posed by the state for the enjoyment of facilities provided by the postal department and not in consideration of any commercial contract.  The post office cannot equated with a common carrier.”

 

The learned counsel further argued that, there is no consumer relationship with the complainant and the postal authorities.  The complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Because the post card was sent by National Employment Service (Kerala), District Employment Exchange, Kattappana, is a consumer who availed the service from the opposite party postal department and that a consumer relation exists between this Government institution and the postal department.  The counsel further stated that one Smt. Sobhana, the delivering agent of 

    (cont.....6)

-  6  -

alleged Kochara Branch post office, who delivered the article to the complainant is also not arrayed as an opposite party.  On this sole reason, the complaint is not maintainable.  The counsel further argued that immediately the opposite party got information about the incident, they conducted enquiry through Inspector of Posts, Peerumedu and the department has not obtained any evidence against the 1st opposite party, as alleged by the complainant.  Hence both the postmaster and delivery agent have carried out their duties and there is no dereliction of duty.

 

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Forum is of a considered view that, the allegation against the 1st opposite party cannot be brushed aside, because the most important person in the scene is one Binoy Joseph.  He was examined as PW2.  While on chief examination, he deposed that, “Rm³ Ccp¶ tjm¸n seäÀ t]mÌvam³ C«p.  AXv date Ignªv sImSp¯p F¶mWv Adnbm³ Ign-ª-Xv.” Eventhough in cross examination, he changed his version, he admitted that, the delivery of post card was in his office and also after the date stated therein.  The main point pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the postal articles was delivered by the postal agent Sobhana, within the time directly to the complainant.  If it is so, it is the bounden duty of the 1st opposite party to adduce evidence to corroborate their version.  Here opposite party failed to produce such a postal agent before the Forum as a witness.  The opposite parties further pointed out that there is no consumer relationship with the complainant, because the complainant failed to implead the sender of the article.  For this point also, the view of the Forum is that, the sender will not be made as a party because the duty of the postal authority to deliver the postal article to the addressee immediately after its receipt.  Here no counter allegation is raised by the 1st opposite party regarding the acceptance of the article on 23.3.2015, as stated in the complaint.  Without sufficient evidence to prove the contentions in the reply version, the opposite parties cannot escape from their liability.  No clear and cogent evidence is produced by the opposite party to strengthen their plea, that the alleged postal article was delivered to the complainant in time to his postal address.

 

Surprisingly, even in its cryptic three page reply version, the postal department except for taking shelter under the departmental enquiry report, 

  (cont.....7)

-  7  -

has not even attempted to furnish any explanation for the inordinate delay of 3 days in the delivery of the post card, within its local area.  In our opinion, the stubborn attitude of the postal department in deliberate attempt to hide the real reason for the wrong doing of its employees is not delivering the post card within the norms prescribed by the postal department itself.  Such recalcitrant conduct of the postal department leads to an irresistible conclusion that there was wilful default on the part of its official, which was not being disclosed, and  therefore, the case of complainant falls within the ambit of the exception, carved out in section 6 of the said Act.  Having held so and there being clear “deficiency” as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him for losing a valuable chance of getting a job, because of delay in delivery of the call letter from the Government Agency.

 

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, complaint allowed.  1st opposite party being the authorised agent of other opposite parties, the other opposite parties are also liable to answer the acts of the 1st opposite party.  The Forum directs the opposite parties 1 to 4, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost jointly, within 30 days  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of September, 2018

 

 

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

  (cont.....8)

-  8  -