SURESH BABU Vs. C.V.AMBILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the opposite parties 4 and 5, the Postmaster and the Post man respectively in C.C. 484/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and cost of Rs. 500/- It is the case of the complainant that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community and a BPL Ration Card holder. She underwent 3 years Diploma Course in Commercial Practice from the Polytechnic. She had applied for a job in KITCO as Office Assistant. The interview letter from KITCO was posted on 10.5.07 under Certificate of Posting to appear for the interview on 16.5.2007. The letter was delivered only on 18.5.2007 at 2 pm by the 5th opposite party. By the time the date of interview was over. The fourth opposite party , Post Master told her that the letter was received at the post office only on 18.5.2007. The post for which she had applied carried a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as salary. She has alleged deficiency and has sought for compensation altogether 5 lakhs. It is stated that the opposite parties used to deliberately delay the postal articles addressed to the house of the complainant and also delivered the letters addressed to the complainant in some other house and the complainant has represented in this regard to the opposite parties. But they have laughed at the complainant whenever such complaints are made In the version filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, it is admitted that the letter was posted to the complainant by KITCO on 10.5.2007. On receiving the complaint from the complainant the matter was enquired through the Asst. Supt. Of Post Office/Irinjalakuda Division. Though it was his thought as having been delivered on 12.5.2007 later it was found that there was some mistake on the part of the above officer on analyzing the date stamp impression and the actual date stamp impression was of the date 18.5.2007. The date part of the delivery stamp is not distinct on this envelop and actually the Enquiry Officer had taken the date as 12.5.2007 instead of 18.5.2007. It is contented that the letter has been delivered in time and that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. It is also contented that as per section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, there is no liability unless the delay etc has been caused due to any fraudulent or willful act or default. The opposite parties 4 and 5 have filed a joint version. It is contented that letter was received at the post office only on 18.5.2007 and the same was delivered to the complainant on the same day at 2ON. As requested by the brother of the complainant the fact that the letter has been delivered on 18.5.07 is noted on the postal cover for the purpose of showing it before KITCO. It is also pointed out at the relevant time the postal department closed the night sorting in Railway may service of Irinjalakuda sorting. So there was a delay in transit at that time. It is contended that the complainant interpreted the seal on the letter as 12.5.07 instead of 18.5.07. There was vagueness in the seal. The complainant had sent a complaint to the postal Superintendent at Irinjalakuda and that he has made preliminary enquiry without hearing the opposite party. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pws 1 and 2Exts. P1 to P15, R1 series and X1. Pw1 is the joint General Manager of KITCO who was testified as to the fact of sending the interview card on 10.5.2007 UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING. He has also stated that the complainant had required qualification for the post with a salary around Rs. 10,000/- He has also produced Ext. X1 the file regarding the interview and other details. Pw2 is the complainant who was testified as the postal card delivered to the complainant it is seen that the letter has been posted UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING. The date of receipt at the post office of the complainant is 12.5.2007. We find that the date seal is very clear and that there is no scope for holding that the date is 18.5.2007. There is the endorsement by the Superintendent of Post Master/OP4 that the letter was received on 18.5.2007 and delivered on the same date. The above endorsement is clearly incorporated. Opposite parties have not adduced anyoral evidence. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination of Pw2 to dis conduct her version the opposite parties 1 to 3 have not produced the report of Enquiry as evidence from the version of the 3rd opposite party on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3. It is evident that the Assistant Supt of Post Office., Iringalakuda division who conducted the enquiry has found that the case of the complainant is true. The 3rd opposite party in the version filed mentioned that the above enquiry officer had made a mistake in analyzing the date stamp impression. We find that 3rd opposite party on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3 has attempted to cover up the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 4 and 5 as we find that the date seal on Ext. A3 cover is very clear that it was received at the delivery post office on 12.5.2007 The admit on the part of opposite parties 4 and 5 has to be deprecated. Further the above enquiry report was also not produced. In view of the above rather it is dishonest action on the part of the 3rd opposite party who filed the revision on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 also. We find that opposite parties 1 to 3 has also to be made liable. In the result, the order of the forum is modified as follows. The opposite parties 1 to 5 will be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with interest on 12% from the date of compensation, ie. 25.6.08. and cost of Rs. 500/- the amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above. The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with copy of this order.