Before the Honorable
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.
(Super Market Complex, Block – 1, 1st Floor.)
Consumer Case No.: 16/2009.
Date of filing : 06.03.2009.
Date of final order : 31.08.2009.
Present:
A) Sri Saurish Chakraborty President.
B) Smt.Swapna Kar Member.
C) Sri Swaraj Kumar Biswas Member.
Smt. Soma Das (Dutta),
Wife of Subrata Dutta,
C/o – Bimal Chandra Bose,
Vill. – Udaypur, P. O. – Karnajora,
P.S. – Raiganj, Dist. – Uttar Dinajpur. Complainant.
versus
1) The Sub-post Master,
Mohanbati Post Office,
Mohanbati, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
2) The Post Master,
Raiganj Head Post Office,
Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
3) Union of India,
Represented by
The Superintendent of Post Office,
Uttar and Dakshin Dinajpur,
Balurghat, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Opposite Parties.
Counsels:
Sri Rohini Kumar Dutta for the Complainant.
Sri Pradip Kar for the Opposite Parties.
Judgment
Date: 31.08.2009.
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by one Smt. Soma Das (Dutta), praying for compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lacs) only towards her mental economical sufferings against the Opposite Party, Indian Post and Telegraph Department for its negligence and carelessness in delivery an envelop sent by the Complainant to the addressee Civil Defence Department, Government of West Bengal.
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant applied for her candidature as apprentices under Health and Family Welfare Department, West Bengal for the academic session 2009 – 2011 in the quota reserved for Civil Defence Volunteer. She sent her application by register post with A/D by post through the Mohanbati Sub-post Office on 18.12.2008. But, unfortunately the Postal Department delivered the said application on 05.02.2009 – 58 days after the same was posted. So, due to late arrivals of that envelop at the office of the addressee the candidature of the Complainant was not considered. It is alleged further that due to callousness and negligence of the Postal Department the Complainant lost a chance to enroll herself as a trainee. Thereby the Complainant lost all the hopes of employment. This has caused tremendous mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. So this complaint filed by the Complainant praying for the relief already narrated above.
Opposite Parties have contested the present complaint by filing one written version attacking the case of the Complainant on certain legal grounds. Their case is that they do not admit that they delivered the alleged letter on 05.02.2009 or 58 days after the date of posting. Their specific case is that from the query made by the local post office, it was informed that the letter in question was delivered to the addressee on 16.12.2008. As such the Opposite Parties claim that this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Decisions with reasons:
In support of her complaint the Complainant has filed three numbers of original documents, namely
i) One postal receipt vide Sl. No. 5270. (Exhibit – 1).
ii) One A/D card, which received by Deptt. Of Civil Defence on 05.02.2009. (Exhibit – 2).
iii) 3rd, 4th, 11th, 12th pages of newspaper, ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’ dated 28.11.2009, showing advertisement. (Exhibit – 3).
Opposite Parties have filed the following documents -
a) One Xerox copy of postal receipt. (Exhibit – A).
b) One Xerox copy of letter dated 23.06.2009 received from the Superintendent of Posts Balurgaht. (Exhibit – B).
In this case the pivot question is whether the letter of the Complainant, which was sent on 08.12.2008 through Mohanbati Post Office has actually reached to the addressee on 05.02.2009 or it was actually delivered on 16.12.2008. It is not disputed that the Complainant in response to an advertisement published in a Bengali Newspaper, ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’ dated 28.11.2008 for the post of trainee under Health and Family Welfare Department, West Bengal; she applied for the same post. It is not disputed that she sent the said letter by registered post on 08.12.2008 addressing the Joint Secretary, Civil Defence Department, Writers Building, Kolkata – 700 001. In the advertisement in question (Exhibit-3), the candidates were asked to send their application to the Joint Secretary of Civil Defence Department. Now appears that the Complainant has duly posted her application under registered post with A/D, but it is her allegation that the said letter was delivered to the office of the Joint Secretary, Civil Defence Department on 05.02.2009. The Complainant relies much upon the postal acknowledgement, which she had received back and this acknowledgement clearly shows the signature with stamp of the office of Civil Defence Department with date. If that be so, it may be positively be concluded that the letter was delivered on 05.02.2009. The documents, which the Opposite Parties have filed are marked Exhibit – A and Exhibit – B respectively. From the Exhibit – A, which is a Xerox copy of a document and relied by the Opposite Parties. It is the argument of the Opposite Parties that the entries showing in this document are related to the letters, which had been received by the Civil Defence Department in response to the advertisement dated 28.11.2008 and the second letter is said to have been written by one of the officials of the Postal Department (the designation of the authority is not legible) addressed to the Superintendent of Posts, Dinajpur Division, Balurghat speaks of the delivery of the concerned letter to the addressee on 16.12.2008.
Now, upon considering the case of both parties, one fact have surfaced that the postal acknowledgment (Exhibit – 2) makes the case of the Postal Department contradictory. It is a very important matter to note that postal acknowledgment carries the date and post office stamp as soon as it is placed for process in the post office by the Complainant. Thereafter, she had no control of the letter or the postal acknowledgment. It is not explained by the Opposite Parties, how the postal acknowledgement carries the signature with office stamp with date of the Civil Defence Department. The Forum shall always rely upon the best evidence. In the opinion of this Forum postal acknowledgment is the best evidence. We cannot ignore the date of receipt of the concerned letter with signature, stamp and date of the concerned Department. So, it has been now been clear that there was clear-cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department (O.P.). So, they cannot brush aside their responsibility in delivery of the concerned letter by taking a plea that this was duly served to the addressee on due date. The documents they have filed, in our view, are not reliable in as much as the present facts and circumstances of the case is concerned.
It is no doubt the Complainant by the negligence and irresponsible act of the Postal Department has suffered mentally and she is entitled to claim compensation against the Opposite Parties for her sufferings. So, this Forum allow her complaint.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence it is ordered,
That the complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party 1 and 2 with cost.
The Complainant is allowed to claim compensation of Rs.5,000.00 (rupees five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500.00 (rupees five hundred)only against the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.
The Opposite Parties are directed to make the payment of the entire amount of Rs.5,500.00 (rupees five thousand and five hundred) only within one month from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant may claim interest at the rate of 6.5 (six and half) percent per annum.
The case against Opposite Party No. 3 is dismissed ex-parte without cost.
Furnish the true photocopies of this Final Order to the parties free of cost.
Sd/-………..……….. Sd/-…………………. Sd/-……………………
Swaraj Kumar Biswas Swapna Kar Saurish Chakraborty
Member, Member, President,
D. C. D. R. F., D. C. D. R. F., D. C. D. R. F.,
Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj. Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj. Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj.