The instant appeal Under Section 15 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘ ) is at the behest of the Complainant to impeach the order NO.12  dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - II ( for  short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No.537/2016 whereby the complaint lodged by the Complainant Under Section 12 of the Act  was dismissed on contest.

        The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that on 19.12.2015 at 10.10 a.m. he sent  one Speed Post under receipt No. EW937868332IN From Beadon Street MDG Post Office to M/s. Sony India,  Kolkata Branch, at Arcadia Central, 5th floor, Plot No.4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700 017 and another Speed Post under receipt No.EW115750122IN From New Market Post Office on 23.12.2015 at about 1.27 p.m. to M/s. Canon India  Pvt. Ltd.,Arcadia Central, 4th and 6th floor, Plot No. 4A Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700 017. The complainant alleged that both the notices  have returned  on 26.12.2015 and 30.12.2015  respectively with remark “No such addressee hence return to sender “. The complainant alleged that both the legal notice was made to file case before this Commission and  the notices issued from the Office of the Commission by Speed Post with A/D Card had been duly served and therefore,  the remark made by Postal Staff is a patently false statement as both the addressee is doing business at the above address and the postal staff has purposefully written  the  remark with connivance with the addressee. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for relief of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

        The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by filing a joint written statement have stated that  the Plot no.4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700017 came into the jurisdiction of Park Street Head Post Office and after February, 2016 all postal articles got delivered at that premises after February, 2016 and as there is no deficiency on the part of them the complaint should be dismissed.

        After assessing the materials on record, the Ld . District Forum by the impugned order dismissed the complaint with an observation  that there was no deficiency in services on the part of OPs. To assail the said order,  the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

        Seen the materials on  record and considered the submission advanced by the appellant, who appeared in person and the Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

        Undisputedly, the appellant sent  one Speed Post under receipt No. EW937868332IN From Beadon Street MDG Post Office to M/s. Sony India,  Kolkata Branch, at Arcadia Central, 5th floor, Plot No.4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700 017 and another Speed Post under receipt No.EW115750122IN From New Market Post Office on 23.12.2015 at about 1.27 p.m. to M/s. Canon India  Pvt. Ltd.,Arcadia Central, 4th and 6th floor, Plot No. 4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700 017. It is also not in dispute that those two Speed Posts   returned on 26.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 respectively with postal  remark” No such addressee hence return to sender”.

        In  this regard, an explanation advanced by the respondents that the address Arcadia Central, Plot 4A, Abanindranath Thakur Sarani ( Old Camac Street ), Kolkata – 700017 came under jurisdiction of  Park Street Head Post Office after February, 2016.

        In  the petition of complaint, the appellant has specifically averred that the Postal Staff has made a patently false remark in  the cover of the Speed Post – “ No such addressee hence return to sender”. In this regard in paragraph  - 10 of  the written version it has been mentioned the report was not written by the Senior Post Master, Park Street Head P. O. and the same has been written by any other representative of Park Street Head P. O. In any case, it indicates fault on the part of the Postal Authority. 

        The address of  the respondents was clear and without making any intention to cause service  to the  respondents or to inform  the appellant by any S.M.S. or by any call, just to absolve the responsibility postal employee has made  such  remark. The Ld. District Forum did not consider  that aspect of the matter which was virtually admitted by the respondents in their written version.

        The avowed  object behind  the legislation of the Act is to provide for better protection of the interest of the  Consumers. To achieve the object, a liberal construction is required to be made and in this regard Section  3 of the Act has provided that it is in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of law. Therefore, in my view in order to give effect to the said objective of the Act, if a sender  of a letter /Speed Post etc is able to create a reasonable degree of probability that there was wilful default on the part of an employee of Postal Department, the onus would shift on to the department to discharge  the onus to prove its denial, particularly when the sender,  the aggrieved party does not have any excess to the  internal working of the Post Office.

        I have already recorded  that the  respondents in their written  version has admitted their fault but they have made an attempt to escape  the Post Master, Park Street Head P. O. Assuming that the Head Post Master did  not commit any fault, yet somebody of the said Post Office has shown this kind of  negligence . Therefore, it is quite apparent that the OPs  were deficient in rendering proper services. In fact, no circumstance has been brought on record by the respondents that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any employee of Park Street Head P. O. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum has committed a grave mistake by not holding that  the respondent /OPs were deficient in rendering services.

        In  view of the above findings, the appellant /complainant is entitled to compensation.  To deal with the situation, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act which runs as follows –

          “14. Finding of the District Forum. – (1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complaint against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely :

...........

          (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party”.

          The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.  Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled.  There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury.  There is a duty cast on the Consumer Forum to take into account all relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid.

          Therefore, the assessment of compensation depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  In the instant case, the Postal Authority without  following the proper procedure returned  the Speed Posts to the appellant. This has happened due to fault on the part of concerned employee who dealt with  making  remark  in the Speed Post.   Needless to say, when a Court/Forum directs payment of compensation to the State or its undertaking, the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge the duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that when the Ld. District  Forum found  from the admission in written version that  the  appellant/complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony of course should record carefully the materials and convincing circumstances and it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour of the concerned employee of the Post Office.

In a decision reported in (1994) 1 CPR 569 (Lucknow Development Authority – Vs. – M.K. Gupta) the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that the authority to fix the responsibility of the officers who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the appellant within a period of six months from a copy of this order is produced or served on it and the Court further ordered that the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Commission for mental harassment shall be recovered for such officers proportionately from their salary.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances and after giving thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the parties, it appears to me that the loss suffered by the respondent in this case is not of that ilk which should be compensated by payment of Rs.90,000/-.  Considering the degree of  loss or injury suffered by the appellant, in my view, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- in the facts and circumstances would sub serve the object of justice. 

In view of the above,  the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned order is hereby set aside .

          Consequently,  CC/537/2016 is allowed.

          The respondents/Opposite Parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-  to the appellant/complainant within  60 days from date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from date till its  realisation.

           The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle/respondent No.2 is directed to fix the responsibility of the officers/employees concerned and to recover the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- from the officers/staff who are responsible for causing harassment and agony to the appellant from their salaries proportionately within three (3) months from the d ate of communication of the order.

With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of  the  order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit – II for information.