State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1 Head Postmaster, Hpo vs Alibaba on 29 August, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/27/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/12/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/58/2012 of District Karimnagar) 1. 1 Head Postmaster, HPO Peddapalli, Karimnagar 2. 2 Supdt of Post offices Peddapalli Karimnagar 3. 3 Director of Post Offices, GPO GPO, Hyderabad Hyderabad 4. 4 Director General of Post Offices New Delhi 5. 5 Director of Post Offices Kolkatha West Bengal ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Alibaba S/o Raj Mohammad, Occ. Unemployed student, Hno 4-4-40, Rajiv Nagar of Peddapalli, Represented by Raj Mohammad parent in person Karimnagar ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 29 Aug 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FA NO. 27 OF 2015 AGAINST CC NO. No. 58 OF 2012, DISTRICT FORUM ; KARIMNAGAR Between: Head Postmaster, HPO, Peddapalli, District karimnagar Supdt. Of Post offices, Peddapalli, District Karimnagar. Director of Post offices, GPO, Hyderabad Director General fo Post offices, New Delhi Director of Post offices, Kolkata ( West Bengal ) ..Appellants/Ops And Alibaba, S/o raja Mohammad, Occ : Unemployed student H.No. 4-4-40, Rajiv Nagar of Peddapalli, District Karimnagar Represented by Raj Mohammad ( parent) ( in person) .. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. Vasireddy Vinod Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : party in person. Coram : Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Nineth day of August Two Thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President) ****
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Appellants/opposite parties to set aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2014 made in CC No. 58 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum, Karimnagar.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he sent an application for the post of Tutor/demonstrator by Speed Post through OP.1 to the Registrar, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata on 24.08.2009 and the last date for receipt of applications was 31.08.2009 but it reached the destination on 02.09.2009, i.e., after the last date. Consequently, the University authorities returned the same to him and thus he was deprived of his legitimate job which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4) The first opposite party remained exparte. The version of the second opposite party was adopted by opposite parties 3 to 5.
5) The second opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version while admitting that the complainant booked a cover to send by speed post bearing No. EN4095860311N through OP.1 on 24.08.2009 by paying an amount of Rs.57/- addressed to the Registrar, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, DD -36, Sector -1, Salt Lake city, Kolkata -64, it reached the destination on 02.09.2009 and it was returned to the sender on 03.09.2009 with a remark " addressee refused" and hence the same was delivered to the sender on 12.09.2009. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act 1898, no officer of the Post office shall incur any liability by the reason of any such loss or miss delivery or delay or damage and unless caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-22 and the respondents/opposite parties filed Evidence Affidavit and got marked Ex. B-1 and B2. Heard both sides.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for losing the chances of job for inordinate delay in the transit of speed post, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony casued for 5 years of long struggle and hardship inclusive of the costs for the litigation within 30 days.
8) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/opposite parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.
9) Counsel on both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof together with written arguments. . Heard counsel on both sides.
10) The points that arises for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 11) Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the complainant booked a cover to be sent by speed post bearing No. EN4095860311N through OP.1 on 24.08.2009 by paying an amount of Rs.57/- towards charges addressed to the Registrar, West Bengal University of Health Sciences, DD -36, Sector -1, Salt Lake city, Kolkata -64, it reached the destination on 02.09.2009 and it was returned to the sender on 03.09.2009 with a remark " addressee refused" and hence the same was delivered to the sender on 12.09.2009.
12) The first contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that the respondent/complainant booked the speed post article on 24.08.2009 at OP I post office on which date the cause of action arose but the complaint was filed only on 21.03.202 and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. After prolonged continuous correspondence, the respondent/ complainant got issued legal notice vide Ex. A9 dated 14.01.2012 demanding to pay Rs.6 lakhs. Though the cause of action starts on 24.08.2009, it was continued till 14.01.2012. The complaint was filed on 21.03.2012, i.e., within two years. Hence the complaint was not barred by limitation.
13) The further contention of the appellants/opposite parties is that as per Section 6 of the Indian Post offices Act, 1898, " the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, miss delivery 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 term be undertaken by the Central Government hereinafter provided and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by the reasons of any such loss or miss delivery or delay or damage and unless caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default ". Further, they are ready to pay the compensation equal to the composite speed post charges paid by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has paid Rs.57/- only towards the charges. As rightly argued by the counsel for the appellants that if 1000 articles are delayed all over the country per day, the Government have to be compensated crores of rupees. On the other hand, in the case on hand, mere sending of application to the employer does not give any guarantee of employment to the applicant. Of course, he may or may not succeed in his effort. On the basis of assumption of effort, guarantee cannot be credited and on that count, expected loss could not be compensated. However, the mental agony suffered by the applicant cannot be set aside. Though Section 6 of Post offices Act, gives immunity with regard to the loss or miss delivery or delay of article, but it does not give any immunity to the mental agony suffered by the applicant. The complaint was filed under Consumer Protection Act. Hence the appellants cannot escape from the liability of mental agony suffered by the respondent/complainant under the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the above Rule position and statutory position, we are of the opinion that the respondent/complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.57/- towards postal charges of the article and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony undergone by the respondent/complainant for all these years. ). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant, this Commission is of the view that the appellants/opposite parties are liable to refund an amount of Rs.57/- towards postal charges and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the respondent/complainant all these years, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of chances of job granted by the District Forum is set aside. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
14). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified directing the appellants/opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.57/- towards postal charges paid by the respondent/complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for suffering by the respondent/complainant all these years and to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- towards costs. Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards losing chances of job is set aside. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated :29.08.2017. JBNRN (P)& PVR (M) [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER