Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1202/2012

Neeru - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sr. Superintender of Post Office & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.1202/2012                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

  Neeru,

H.No.697, Type IV, Sec.3,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.

                         ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office & CPIO,

South West, New Delhi,

South West Division,

Chankayapuri, New Delhi-110021.

 

2. The Dy. Registrar,

Institute of Medical Science,

Banaras Hindu University,

       Varansi(UP) -221005

                                ………. Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant applied for admission to 1^st year MBBS/BDS/BAMS course 2012-13 Session of  Institute of Medical Science(IMS), Banaras Hindu University, Varansi i.e. OP-2.  It is alleged that for the entrance exam  of the complainant  regarding the  above admission, a registered letter was received  from the IMS No.208598 dated 21.7.2012 which was posted by OP-2 on 26.7.12 and received by her on 3.8.12.  It is submitted that the complainant was informed that on the basis of result, she was placed in waiting list and have to appear before Admission Commission of the Institute at 9.00 a.m. of 3.8.12.  It is further submitted that when the said letter was received the proposed schedule time had already been passed.  Due to the delay  of 5 days  in posting the letter,  the complainant could not appeared before the Admission Committee for admission of above course. It is alleged that  the complainant filled a RTI on 8.8.2012, in response to the same, a reply has been received stating that 5 days time was required  to clear the post.  But in the present case OP-1 has taken double time i.e. 9 days, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs, hence this complaint.

2.     The notice of complaint was issued to the OPs.  Despite service , none appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte vide order dated 12.9.2013.  Complaint has been contested by OP-1. It denied any deficiency in service on its part and further stated that as per the rules and regulations of the Postal Department, “ the service standards norms of delivery of registered articles is maximum time taken 5 to 7 days, excluding day of posting, holiday and Sunday in rest of India”.  In the present case, the letter in question was posted on 26.7.12 and was delivered to the complainant on 3.8.12, as such the letter in question was delivered on 7^th day to the complainant which is within time as per the norms of Postal Department, hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Both parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit.

4.      We have heard arguments advanced at bar, have perused the pleadings and evidence adduced on record.

 5.    It is argued by the complainant that OP-1 is liable for deficiency in services  as  the letter in question was delivered by it after 5 days delay i.e. on 3.8.12 the date of proposed schedule,  although it was despatched by OP-2 on 26.7.12. It is further argued by the complainant that a registered letter  dated 21.7.2012 which was posted by OP-2 on 26.7.12 was received by her on 3.8.12 which shows that  OP-2 has posted the same after the delay of 5 days which leads to the fact that they were  playing with the future of candidates by posting the letter after 5 days delay which is intentional on the part of OP-2 for favouring some other candidates.

6.     On the other hand OP-1 argued that there is no deficiency in service on its part and further stated that as per the rules and regulations of the Postal Department, “ the service standards norms of delivery of registered articles is maximum time taken 5 to 7 days, excluding day of posting, holiday and Sunday in rest of India”.  In the present case, the letter in question posted on 26.7.12 and was delivered to the complainant on 3.8.12, as such the letter in question was delivered on 7^th day to the complainant which is within time as per the norms of Postal Department.

7.     Perusal of the file shows that the letter dated 21.7.12 was posted by OP-2 on 26.7.12 and the same was received by the complainant on 3.8.12 i.e. on the date of proposed schedule.  Notice was served to OP-2 and vide letter dated 11.5.13, OP-2 asked this Forum to provide him the copy of complaint for further necessary action.  OP-2 did not bother to appear before this Forum through its official or counsel, despite the instructions given in the notice by this Forum, hence, it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.  OP-2 ought to have sent the letter of proposed schedule to the complainant well in time so that she could reach the  venue well in time.  Perusal of the letter shows that the letter was written by OP-2 to the complainant on 21.7.12 but was sent by post on 26.7.12, which leads to the delay in delivering the same to the complainant.    Hence,  we are of the opinion that OP-2 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant, therefore,  liable for deficiency in services.   As regard, OP-1, the letter was received by it on 26.7.12, if at all, we exclude the day of posting i.e. 26.7.12 as per the norms of OP-1 still 8 days were taken by OP-1 to deliver the registered letter to the complainant.  In these circumstances, there was a delay on the part of OP-1 in delivering the letter to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

8.     In view of above, we are inclined to hold that there was a delay on the part of both the OPs in despatching and delivering the letter to the complainant, resulting in the loss of the golden opportunity of getting admission to 1^st year MBBS/BDS/BAMS course 2012-13 Session of Institute of Medical Science(IMS), Banaras Hindu University, Varansi to her.  We therefore, hold both the OPs liable for deficiency in services however the extent of deficiency of OP-2 is much more than OP-1.  Accordingly, we direct them as under:

1. OP-1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of pain and  mental agony suffered by him which will include cost  of litigation.

 

2. OP-2 is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.50,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him which will include cost  of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to R.R.

 

Announced in open Forum on 20/12/2018. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER