State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master General, West Bengal ... vs Sri Dipak Banerjee & Another on 27 October, 2009
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/09/199 DATE OF FILING : 29.05.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 27.10.2009 APPELLANT The Post Master General West Bengal Circle General Post Office (G.P.O.) Yogayog Bhavan P-36, Chittaranjan Avenue Kolkata-700 012. RESPONDENT 1. Sri Dipak Banerjee S/o Sri Santi Banerjee Vill. & P.O. Garalgacha P.S. Chanditala Dist. Hooghly. 2. The Manager (HR/OPR) Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. 43/46, Garden Reach Road Kolkata-700 024. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mrs. J.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. A.K.Arya, Ld. Advocate (Res.1) Mr. R.De, Ld. Advocate (Res.2) : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 22.4.09 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C. No. 456 of 2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint on contest against the OP No. 1and dismissed against the OP No. 2 thereby directing the OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The complainants case before the Ld. Forum below, in brief, was that the complainant being an unemployed youth qualified the written test for the post of Journeyman (Welder) in the OP No. 2 concern and the trade test was supposed to be held on 11.10.07 at 2.00 p.m. The letter asking the complainant to appear before the trade test was posted by the OP No. 2 on 1.10.07 and the complainant received the same on 22.10.07 thereby denying the complainant to appear before the trade test on the scheduled date, which directly affected the complainant in his securing employment in the said service. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such deficiency at the instance of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 the complainant preferred a petition of complaint for appropriate redressal in terms of money value.
The Ops contested the case by filing separate written versions. According to the OP No. 2, he had no involvement in the transaction entered into between the complainant and the OP No. 1 and that in the absence of any deficiency as it is apparent from the face of the materials on record, question of implicating him in this proceeding was not at all desirable and accordingly, prayed for exonerating the OP No. 2 from the ambit of the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1, on the other hand, claimed immunity, as the postal authority being a Central Government institution had no liability for actual receipt of the postal article, which was duly taken care of, though the same was received by the complainant after the expiry of the appointed date and accordingly, prayed for rejection of the petition of complaint.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that there was deficiency of service at the instance of the OP No. 1/Postal Authority only and the OP No. 2 had no role to play in this regard and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint in the manner discussed above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner discussed above.
Case laws referred to at the instance of the Appellant
1. 61 CLJ Page-497
2. AIR 1955 SC 508
3. 2006
(1) WBLR Cal 906 DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Postal Authority that in this case the complainant can never be treated as a Consumer in its true sense as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the consumer was designated as an addressee in the postal envelope, which contained a letter of interview in question and in that case under no circumstances the complainant can claim himself to be a Consumer in the true sense of the term. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that there is no liability clause in the Postal Department Regulations so far as it relates to delay, if any, in the consignment of the postal articles, etc. which in this case did take effect. In this connection, it has also been submitted before us on behalf of the Appellant that there is no denial of the factual position to the effect that the Appellant is an agent of the sender of the postal article, i.e. Respondent No. 2, and thus the Appellant can never be held responsible for delay caused in reaching the postal article to its destination and the consequential effect thereof, as it has been claimed by the complainant. While elaborating his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also urged before us that in this case it is an admitted position that the letter sent to the complainant at the instance of the Respondent No. 2 was sent under Speed Post and as per existing rules, at best the complainant is entitled to pecuniary compensation of Rs. 1,000/- only and nothing else.
The assessment made at the instance of the Ld. District Forum in this regard is arbitrary and not based on the actual state of affairs and the same should be set aside in limini. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has also raised the point of maintainability of the complaint petition filed at the instance of the complainant.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant as discussed above and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case it is the positive case of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 that he was asked to appear before the trade test interview on 11.10.07 and the Respondent No. 2 in due course of time sent the letter to him, i.e. on 1.10.07. But for the extreme laches on the part of the Appellant/OP No. 2 the same was delivered only on 22.10.07 thereby depriving the Complainant/Respondent to take part in the trade test examination and consequently he was deprived of a reasonable scope of employment. The Respondent No. 2 has practically tried to wash his hand out on the plea that he was a mere sender of the interview letter and had no role to play in sending the same in question to the Complainant/Respondent and that it was the sole responsibility and liability of the Appellant only. The Appellant, on the other hand, has taken a plea that once the letter was posted well ahead of the date fixed, subsequent delivery, if any, will not ipso facto hold the Appellant responsible and the Indian Telegraph Act has adequate protective regulations to that effect and prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint. From the materials on record we are satisfied to hold that there is no denial of the fact that though the interview letter was posted well ahead of the date fixed, but the same was received by the complainant/Respondent much beyond the appointed date, which has certainly deprived the complainant to avail of a reasonable opportunity of employment. We are not going to enter into other aspects of the point raised in this connection. As the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation, we are only concerned with the interest of the consumer only. In this connection, we firmly hold that the complainant/Respondent No. 1 is a Consumer in its true sense of the Consumer Protection Act. We have also gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has reasonably assessed the cases of respective parties from all possible angles and has arrived at a just and proper finding thereby exonerating the OP/Respondent No. 2 and holding the Appellant/OP No. 1 responsible for the misdeed and mischief, which tantamounted to deficiency in service. However, in this regard, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- only keeping the other portion of the impugned judgement intact. In the result, the Appeal succeeds in part.
Hence, ordered that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest without any order as to cost.
The compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) as awarded by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgement stands reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only).
The other portion of the impugned judgement remains intact.
MEMBER MEMBER