Contention of the complaint petition is that complainant applied for the post of Group D of Malda District Judge Court. He gave postage stamp of rupees two hundred and other expenses. The date of examination for the post was listed as 21.08.2016. The recruitment authority posted the letter of the interview on 10.08.2016 but the letter was delivered on 29.08.2016. The distance between post office and delivery venue was only half kilometer but it took 19 days to be delivered. So due to non information or receiving the call letter complainant was unable to appear for the examination. Complainant went to the post office to lodge complainant but was refused to take it. So it is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP which created damage in the career of Complainant. Hence he approached before this commission for compensation of rupees four lakhs.

        OP Postal Department appeared and stated by WV that this case is not maintainable. There is no proof that in which date letter of interview/ examination was posted by the authority. Moreover U/S 6 and 84 of Post Office Guide Part1 exempted in law from all responsibilities in case of non delivery, delay, damage of any postal article in transmission by Post. In fact it was ordinary letter and no record was maintained. So, there is no fault or deficiency on the part of this department.

        Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and filed required documents.

         Council of the postal department argued that the complaint is under the defect of parties since Judge Court of Malda was not made party who dispatched the call letter and it is quite dark in trial that really candidate did not appear before the examination. And it is nothing but a test case to squeeze money from the department. So no court should indulge such of any practice by the candidate. Moreover in the era of internet it will show all dates of exam to all candidates and it cannot be expected that at a stone throw distance candidate did not come to office for his information of examination. So in no way it is any deficiency on the part of the department.

        On the other council of the complainant contradicted this argument and said that this complainant suffered a great loss at his career when he is a consumer on giving a postage fee to the department.

Decision

        This commission carefully perused the record. From the record we find that in nowhere it cleared in which date the call letter was dispatched. It is admitted position u/s 6 and 84 of postal act that in ordinary post the Post Office is not responsible or no time schedule is specific for delivery of letter. Admittedly this letter is under ordinary post. So though for arguments sake it is held that the letter was posted on 10.08.2016 still then for normal delivery postal department cannot be held as responsible for the mental agony of the complainant. At present at the advent of internet everything is published in internet and complainant must have known about the date of his examination, hence in ordinary postage, postal department cannot be held responsible for any fault or any mental agony of the complainant. Factually delivery of letter exempts the department from deficiency of service irrespective of any date of delivery of service.

Hence Order

That the complainant is not in success. No cost is made.