State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India, Department Of Posts & ... vs Kulwinder Singh on 11 February, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1650 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 17.09.2010.
Date of Decision: 11.02.2014.
1. Union of India, Department of Posts & Telegraph, through Senior
Superintendent of Post, Head Post Office, Patiala.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post, Head Post Office, Patiala.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Kulwinder Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o H.No.26, Street No.15-B,
Patiala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
19.07.2010 passed by the Additional
Bench of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Respondents Exparte.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Union of India, Department of Posts & Telegraph, through Senior Superintendent of Post, Head Post Office, Patiala and another, appellants/opposite parties (In short "the appellants") have filed this First Appeal No.1650 of 2010 2 appeal against the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by Additional Bench of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Kulwinder Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, asserting that a news item was published in the "Daily Ajit" on 27.08.2007 vide which the applications for the vacancy of Workshop Instructor Fitting and Plumber were invited and the last date for receipt of applications was 20.09.2007. The respondent was eligible candidate and he applied for the said posts and paid the requisite money of Rs.300/- and Rs.150/- for these posts and got demand draft of Punjab National Bank on 07.09.2009. The respondent sent the applications alongwith demand drafts through registered post Nos.6512 and 6513 on 13.09.2007. The respondent never received any response from the department of Technical and Industrial Training, Punjab, to whom the respondent applied for these posts. The respondent approached the appellants and inquired about the applications and moved an application to appellant no.2. In response to that application, the appellants issued a letter dated 11.09.2008, disclosing that the registered post was delivered on 03.03.2008. Due to negligence of the appellants, the draft amount of Rs.450/- was wasted and the respondent missed the golden chance to be in the Govt. job, being a fit candidate for these posts. The respondent also suffered a loss on account of Rs.1,98,000/- towards the pay for one post which was missed due to negligence of the appellants.
3. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to pay Rs.1,98,000/- on account of loss of income for the post applied, First Appeal No.1650 of 2010 3 Rs.450/- towards the amount of drafts, Rs.100/- as postal charges, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable as time barred. The respondent has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts. The complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
5. On merits, it was pleaded that the respondent is not a consumer under the Act. It was admitted that the registered letter Nos.6512 and 6513 were booked from Patiala head office on 13.09.2007 and the contents of those registered letters were not known to the department. It was also admitted that the respondent came to inquire about his registered post articles at a belated stage after about one year. As per rules of the department, the respondent should have lodged the complaint within 3 months/6 months. The complaint can be lodged upto six months, but no compensation is admissible if the complaint is lodged beyond three months, but within six months. In the present case, no written complaint of the respondent was entertained because there is no provision for entertaining the complaint after three months. However, the respondent informed about the delivery of his registered post articles on 11.09.2008. There is no negligence on the part of the department. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the rules pertaining to inquiry and First Appeal No.1650 of 2010 4 entertainment of complaints under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 framed by the department are to deal with the respondent on non- delivery of postal articles at the level of the department authorities, but they do not debar the aggrieved person for availing the remedy before the judicial authority. The remedy u/s 3 of the Act is an additional remedy. In the instant case, the appellants have admitted that the respondent delivered the registered letter on 13.09.2007 vide receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. He applied for Govt. job as per his qualification in the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was admitted by the appellants that the same were delivered on 03.03.2008. The respondent is entitled for compensation, but there is nothing on record, indicating that he had 100% chances of selection for either of the posts. A lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.07.2010, the appellants have come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. The respondent has not contested the appeal and was proceeded against exparte.
11. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the period for retention of the record relating to the registered article is one and a half years and the complaint was filed after a period of two years. Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 provides that no compensation can be awarded. The law is well settled by a number of authorities and the compensation is not permissible. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
First Appeal No.1650 of 2010 5
12. We have considered the version of the appellants as given in the appeal and have thoroughly scanned the entire record.
13. The admitted facts are that the respondent applied for the post of Workshop Instructor, Fitting and Plumber vide application in pursuance of advertisement Ex.C-2. Alongwith the application, drafts of Rs.150/- and Rs.300/- Ex.C-3 were sent through registered post and the postal receipts are Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is the application given by the respondent to the S.S.P. Post Office, Head Post Office, Patiala regarding late receipt of the applications. As per letter Ex.C-7, the respondent was informed that the letter reached on 11.09.2008, whereas the last date for receipt of the applications was 20.09.2007. No other reason or explanation has come forward to show as to why the registered letter posted on 13.09.2007 could not reach the destination within the reasonable period. The letters were posted on 13.09.2007 and the last date for receipt of the application was 20.09.2007, but the registered post was delivered on 03.03.2008, just after about six months. Delay of two or three days can be considered to be reasonable, but a registered letter, reaching after about six months, speaks volumes for itself and shows the gross negligence on the part of the appellants. Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, relied upon by the counsel for the appellants, has exception/proviso to the effect that no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability for any loss, mis-delivery, delay of damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The present case is squarely covered under the term 'willful act or default'. The delay of six months in delivering a regd. letter is nothing, but a willful act, default, gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials of the appellants. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the First Appeal No.1650 of 2010 6 appellants in the grounds of appeal are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The order passed by the District Forum is detailed and speaking and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
14. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 19.07.2010 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
15. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.5,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
16. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 30.01.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member February 11, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)