State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Post Office vs 3Ri.Prashant Kumar S.M. on 19 February, 2010
Appeal No. 2449/2009
. Filed on 23.07.2009
Disposed on 19.02.2010
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BAN GALORE.
DATED: 19/02/2010
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SRI.T. HARIAPPA GOWDA : MEMBER
SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
I. The General Post Office
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore 560 001.
:2. The Post Master, Branch Office
Postal Department,
Mullahalli Post,
Uyyampahalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk.
........... OPs before the DF
.....Appellant/ s
-Versus-
I. 3ri.Prashant Kumar S.M.
3/0. Munilinge Gowda,
R/o.3hetty Keridodbli,
Mullahalli Post,
Uyyampahalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District .
............. Complainant before the DF ..... Respondentl s JUSTICE K.RAMANNA, PRESIDENT < This appeal is filed by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 ,against the order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the 4th, Addl. DF, Bangalore in Complaint No. 2619/2008 whereby the complaint filed by the ~ respondent I complainant came to", be allowed directing the ~lppellant lOps 1 and 2 ,to 'pay a sum of Rs.25,0001- 'as r:ompensation with cost of Rs.5,0001- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of order.
Assailing the same they have come up with this appeal Inainly contending that UIs. 6 of the 'Postal and Telegraphic Act 1898 the postal authorities, are not li~ple to pay for loss, mis- (Ielivery, delay or damage to any po~tal articles in course of I ransmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in rxpress terms be undertaken by the 'Central Government. Therefore the DF totally misled" the 'provisions of Section 2(d) of 1 he Consumer Protection Act. ' The case of the appellant lOps in brief is that the respondent herein who filed a complaint is a graduate had undergone training in driving class and obtained a driving license in order to seek appointment. Therefore he had applied for the post of driver to the Registrar of High Court of Karnataka as per:
I he notification NO.HCE-257/03 invtting application for the varcrncies for the post of drivers. Afterapplying for the said post, he was waiting for interview letter foridriving test to be conducted hy the High Court through Regional" Transport , .
Office. He reCf'ived a registered post containing the interview letter by the appellant/Ops on 24.11.2008 sent by the HQn'ble High Court of Karnataka on 06.11.2008 calling upon him to appear for driving jest fan 20.11.2008 at 7.00 a.tn. in the Unit 7, BMTC, KG Bus Stand, Subhashnagar, Bangalore - 09 and to bring the original driving licence and certificates regarding, qualification, category rtc for verification.
· .l~: j' ,
It is further case of the co!V-Rlainant that after seeing
interview letter calling him for driver;;tesfwhich was already over 011 20.11.2008 wherein the bps :served the said letter on ),4.11.2008. So there 'is a delay' 0[4 ,ct'ays,in serving the interview letter to the complainant which results in deficiency of service.
()n account of this delay, the complainant has lost his golden opportunity to appear before the interviewing authority. When the complainant enquired about the, delay in delivering the interview letter, the appellant 'jOps ,have admitted their negligence but did not gave proper explanation. Hence he filed a complaint before the DF.
After service of notice the appella.P.tjOps appeared through their counsel, filed detailed version denying the averments of the (~on1plaintand contending that there'is no description of RL. In nll probabilities the cover must: have ~ent by Hon'ble High Court I hrough Ordinary post. No pin-code has been mentioned in the ~lcldress. According to the appellant, the,High Court is necessary party to explain whether it has sent the cover under ordinary post or registered post. So after considering the evidence of both the parties, complaint came to be allowed'in part. Therefore the Ops have come up with this appeal.
We have heard the arguments oeLC for the appellantjOps ~1llcl perused the records. Having heard the arguments of both the P9Tties the point that arise for our consideration is whether t he impugned order under challenge passed by the DI; 1S rrivolous, incorrect and it calls for interference.
It is an undisputed fact that' th~,lre~pondent I complainant ,lpplied for the post of driver to the-:Registrar, High Court of I(arnataka on the strength of the notification issued by it and ronsidering the marks obtained ;,} ; \' aPd ,~" ;, qualification of the complainant an intervie~ letterHh~s' been dispatched _on 06.11.2008 with a direction to appear 'before the interviewing <\uthorities on 20.11.2008 at 7.00 am in the Unit 7, BMTC, KG l3us Sand, Subhashnagar, B~galote - 09. Though interview irtter was sent the same was not reached to the complainant in I ime, but it was reached after 4 days, of interview that is on The delay accotding to the re,spondent / complainant is because of the negligence on the part of the officials of the ;tppellant lOps and therefore the DFhas clearly examined the documents produced by the respon~e,l1t /complainant that the \ ~, intel·view card has been sent by registered post and the stamps· alTxed through franking machine for;Rs.'25/ - of the High Court of . l(arnataka RL No. 179 and allowed the complaint of the c\ljuplainant in part.
In this behalf the LC for the appellant lOps submitted that U Is. 6 of the Postal and Telegraphic Act 1898 the DF cannot made liable for any loss, mis-deliver,· delay or damage, of any postal article in course of transmissi()n by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Centlal Government. Therefore there ·is ,no specific undertaken given by the appellants that in case ',of mis-deliver or delay in delivery of the postal cover, they are, liable to indemnify the loss or damage but not for the delay. While arguing the case the LC for the appellant laps drawn' the attention of Section 6 of the j'!)stal and Telegraphic Act- 1898 which re,~ds as follows:
(( Section 6. Exemption from" liability for loss) misdelivery) delay or damqge The Government shall not, incur, any liability by reasons of the loss) misdeliverY or delay of, or damage to, any postal article ,:in course of transmission by post, except in' so far as such liability may in express terms: be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provide; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss) misdelivery, delay or' damag~; unless he has caused the same fraudule'ntlyor by his willful act or default. }} It is argued by the appellant lOP that the complainant I respondent has not impleaded the High Court of Karnataka as a necessary and proper party to prove that the interview letter is sent through registered post well in, advance. Therefore the impunged order under challenge ,is liable ,to be set aside.
On the other hand the counsel for the respondent / complainant submits that the DF is right in observing in Para 6 of its order that the High Court of Karnataka has sent the registered post containing the iriterview letter well in advance. Uut due to negligence on the part of the concerned postal Ruthorities it could not be delivered in time and it has reached after 4 days of interview.
r In Para 7 of the impunged order the DF has also clearly observed that the cover was received on 10.11.2008 by OP No.1 post office and the Sathanur' post, office has received on '~ 12.11.2008. Instead of sending,itto: t~e S.K. Mullahalli the said r:over was lying till 20.11.200,8 with Sathanur Post office only which amounts to negligence on the part of the concerned post office officials. Therefore the contention of the LC for the 8ppellant does not hold water.
. , In this behalf a reference is made to the decision rendered by the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, West Ilengal, Kolkata in case of Post Master, Tapan Post Office and another Vis. Nihar M~alat reported, ih 2010 CTJ 222 (CP) (SCDRC) wherein a similar situation:lacomplaint , • .' r filed by the complainant before the DF came to'be allowed directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,000 I - with litigation expenses and the the State Commission, West Be,ngal, KQlkota has reduced the cornpensabon from Rs.5,000 I-to Rs.3,000 /-.
In the instant case also the records clearly indicates that there is a delay of 4 days in delivering the postal cover sent by the Registrar of High Court of Karnataka through registered post containing the interview letter. So .the candidate has lost the golden opportunity of selection to the 'post of driver. Therefore considering the negligence on the part of the appellant lOP in delivering the registered post, to the extent of 4 days and, the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs.25,000 / - is very high and it has to be reduced to Rs.15,OOO1-. So also considering the willful act of the concerned pO,stmast~r, Sathanur post office in not §ending the registered cov;er to the candidate immediately attracts 2nd part of section 6 of the Postal and Telegraphic Act 1898 in awarding compensation. Therefore the impugned order "~ under challenge is to be modified.' Accordingly the impugned .~., order is modified. In the result? we H~~~tl:1efollowing:
, .'·i ~, '
:~;:.
ORDER;! ::"
'.
, ..
Appeal is allowed iri par~. ' The order passed by the DF is modified. Awarding of Rs.25~'000I - towards compensation IS reduced to Rs.15,0001-.
The appellant laps No. 1 and ,2 are directed to pay T~s.15,0001- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The cost of Rs.5,0001- awarded by {-heDF is kept undisturbed.
The amount deposited by t1).e' appellant/Ops shall be transferred to the DF enabling the DF to pay the same to the complainant after due notice to.him .•, ~R