State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
. Additional Secretary To Government, ... vs . S.N. Padhi, Ias (Retd), C/O Utkal ... on 29 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO.205 OF 1999
From an order dated 02.11.1998
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case
No.54 of 1998.
1. Additional
Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. Secretary to
R.D.C. (Northern Division)
Sambalpur Appellants
-Versus-
1. S.N. Padhi,
IAS (Retd), C/O Utkal
Travels, Shop No.02/45, 1st
Floor, Priyadarshini Market,
CRP Square, Bhubaneswar
2. Senior
Superintendent of Post
Offices, Sambalpur
Respondents
For Appellant
No.1 : N o n e
For Appellant No.2 : Mr.
S. Hota, Under Secy. to
R.D.C., Northern
Divn.
For
Respondent No.1 : N o n
e
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.
S.K. Singh, Central
Govt. Counsel
P R E S E N T :
THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT
A N D
SHRIMATI
SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
O R D E R
DATE:-
The July, 2010.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This appeal is by the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department, and Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur assailing the judgment and order dated 02.11.1998 passed by the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in C.D. Case No.54 of 1998.m By the impugned judgment and order in the aforementioned dispute filed by the complainant-respondent no.1 S.N. Padhi, IAS (Retd) against the present appellants and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur-respondent no.2, the District Forum, while allowing the complaint ex parte against all the opposite parties with cost, has held the opposite parties jointly and severally responsible to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.800/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant Shri S.N.Padhi, who is respondent no.1 before us, with the averment that he retired as Collector, Bargarh on 31.10.1996 and looked forward with all eagerness to get his legitimate pensionary benefits and thereafter to shift over to Sambalpur to finally settle down there. His service books in original were sent by the office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, to the Deputy Secretary to Government in the General Administration Department in letter no.a874 dated 23.04.1997 through registered parcel bearing postal receipt no.7183 dated 26.04.1997 of Sambalpur post office. The Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, subsequently informed the Additional Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department in his letter no.1543 dated 30.07.1997 about the transmission of the original service books. The service books so sent through registered parcel from Sambalpur post office were not delivered to the addressee by the postal authorities. The complainant lodged a complaint about the same before the Superintendent of Post Offices in his letter no.128 dated 27.06.1997 and letter dated 20.07.1997 and requested him to help in tracing out his service books. The Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur also brought this fact to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur in his letter no.1545 dated 30.07.1997 with copy to the complainant for necessary action. The complainant had also requested the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar in his letter no.144 dated 01.07.1997 to intimate him about the position and had expressed his intention to take shelter in the court of law for redressal of his grievance. The complainants request to trace out and intimate him about the fate of his service books fell in deaf ears and there was no response from the postal authorities in any manner. Failing in his attempt and being financially hard pressed after his retirement, the complainant, in order to reconstitute his duplicate service book, had to run to different places where he had served to collect documents and make entries in his service book. This he had to do by suffering physically and mentally and also financial loss. Apart from that, non-settlement of his pensionary benefits made him suffer a lot and caused mental agony, which was due to utter negligence on the part of the postal authorities and which tantamounts to deficiency in service. The complainant had to retain the Government quarters by paying five times the standard licence fee. Ultimately, his pension was sanctioned by the Accountant General of Orissa and the pension sanction order was received by him on 08.10.1997.For these physical sufferings, mental agony and financial loss, which were solely due to deficiency on the part of the postal authorities, he filed the complaint before the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 21.02.1998 with prayer for being compensated financially for the aforementioned sufferings he had undergone.
3. The learned District Forum issued notice to all the three opposite parties, but none of them appeared in response to the notices issued. Ultimately, they were set ex parte and the matter was heard ex parte.
4. Before us in the appeal preferred by opposite parties 1 and 2, i.e., the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa, General Administration Department, Bhubaneswar and the Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Northern Division, Sambalpur, the complainant has been arrayed as respondent no.1 and opposite party no.3-Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur as respondent no.2. On receipt of notice, the complainant-respondent no.1 did not appear due to his old age and suffering and sent a message to that effect. Mr. S.K. Singh, the learned Central Government Counsel appeared for respondent no.2. However, none appeared for appellant no.1-Additional Secretary to Govt., G.A. Department, although Mr. S. Hota, the Under Secretary to the R.D.C., Northern Division, Sambalpur appeared to represent the Secretary to the R.D.C. We have heard Mr. Hota representing appellant no.2 and Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. We have also thoroughly scrutinized the L.C.R. and the documents filed showing the correspondences made by the complainant-respondent no.1 with the postal authorities for tracing out his service books, which were sent by registered parcel by the office of the R.D.C., Northern Division, Sambalpur, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa, G.A. Department, Bhubaneswar. We have also perused the postal receipt showing the dispatch of the registered parcel and the copy of the letters of the Secretary to the R.D.C., Sambalpur, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur and the Post Master, Head Post Office, Sambalpur, copies of which were also sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the G.A. Department as well as to the complainant-respondent no.1. It is the specific case of the complainant-respondent no.1 that none of these letters/correspondences made with the postal authorities met with any response. The complainant, after failing in his attempt to get his service books, which were badly required for finalizing his pension and pensionary benefits, resorted to running from pillar to post to reconstitute his service book. On that count, he had not only to endure physical pain, but also to spend from his pocket a great deal of money by going outside and staying in different stations where he had served earlier in different capacities. Had the postal authorities responded to the letters issued and taken a little pain for tracing out the untraced registered parcel, the complainant would not have been put to so much hardship, for which he had to file the consumer dispute. We find that he is the beneficiary although his service books were sent by the Secretary to the R.D.C., Northern Division, Sambalpur to the Government in the G.A. Department and as such he is the consumer. This fact has also not been disputed by the postal authorities, who did not care to appear before the District Forum and were set ex parte. Such a point was also not raised before us in appeal.
5. Looking to the factual aspects of the consumer dispute, we come to observe that it is only the Postal Department, and here in this appeal respondent no.2, who was opposite party no.3 before the District Forum, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur, who was deficient in service and the present appellants are in no way responsible in the matter.
6. In the result, therefore, while allowing the appeal of the present appellants, we hold respondent no.2, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur alone negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant for which he suffered so much of physical and mental pain as well as financial loss and we absolve the present appellants. We direct respondent no.2, who was opposite party no.3 before the District Forum, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.800/-, as awarded by the District Forum, to the complainant-respondent no.1 within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Smarita Mohanty) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack July ,2010/Nayak