Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1831/2012

Post Master, Post Office - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.V. Rajesh - Opp.Party(s)

B. Pramod

19 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1831/2012

 

1.  Post Master, Post Office      NES Layout, Malavalli 2.  The Superintendent, Post Office      Mandya Division, V.V. Road, Mandya 3.  The Chief Secretary      Government of India,      Post & Telegram Division,      Central Secretariat, New Delhi (By Sri. B. Pramod) V/s	….Appellants
K.V. Rajesh The Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank, Malavalli Branch, Malavalli, Mandya Dist. (By Sri. Vignesh Shetty)	..…Respondent

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP in C.C.No.123/2012 preferred this appeal against the order passed by District Commission, Mandya which directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had sent one postal cover by filled application for employment to the Manager, General Banking on 16.12.2011 and 16.12.2011 itself the OP accepted the said post and agreed to deliver within 3 to 4 days, but, the complainant noticed that the said post was not delivered to the addressee, instead it returned to complainant himself after lapse of 15 days and complainant alleged that infact he applied for the post of Manager, General Banking and he has enclosed application along with required document and fee details.  He is deprived of an opportunity of getting said employment due to non-service of the post sent by complainant.  Infact, the said employer has instructed the candidates/complainant to send filled applications in ordinary post only.  Accordingly, complainant has sent said application in ordinary post on 16.12.2011.  After return of the said application / post, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP and enquired about non-delivery of said post.  The OPs have shown negligence in corresponding and alleged against complainant himself that he wrote address in “From” address instead of “To” address.  Hence, refused to settle the matter against which complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice this appellant had took the defense that the complainant himself has rendered negligence in writing address in the column of “from” and he wrote sender’s address in “To” Column.  Hence, there is no any deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- for which the appellant is before this Commission and prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. Heard from appellant.
6. On going through the appeal memo and certified copy of the impugned order it is noticed that in order to obtain employment complainant had sent a filled application form in an ordinary post to bank address mentioning “Application for the post of Manager, General Banking”, but, the said post was not delivered to the address mentioned on postal cover, instead of that it was returned to the complainant.  The complainant alleged before District Commission that he lost an opportunity of employment due to non-delivery of the post and claimed for compensation, for which appellant have taken a defense that the complainant wrote sender’s address in the column “from” and his address in column of “To”, hence, it was redelivered to the complainant.  It is only negligence on the part of complainant himself and submits there is deficiency in service.  The District Commission after trial has noticed that the complainant has mentioned his addressed backside of postal cover and he mentioned sender’s address in front portion of the cover, which indicates that it is “To” address if it is in the front and backside From/Sender’s address.  Hence, fixed liability on OP for non-delivery of the post to the address mentioned in the front.  Conclusion taken by District Commission is in accordance with law.  We are of the opinion that in the ordinary course of transaction complainant has sent post for employment by writing sender’s address in backside and reflected “to address” in the front page, which clearly indicates it has to be sent to the address in the front page.  It seems due to non-delivery of said post to the addressee, complainant lost an opportunity for employment to the particular post.  The OPs have deliberately neglected and redelivered the post to the complainant’s address which is a clear negligence on the part of OP.  Award passed by the District Commission is just and proper and there is no merit in the appeal.  No interference is required.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to the complainant.

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*