Intentional Non-Delivery Of Interview Letter, Kollam District Commission Orders Postman And Postal Authorities To Compensate Applicant
The Kollam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of S.K. Sreela (President), Sandhya Rani (Member) and Stanly Harold (Member) held a Postman, Post Master and Senior Superintendent of Post Office liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the interview call letter for a Co-operative Bank due to Post Man’s ongoing family dispute with the...
The Kollam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of S.K. Sreela (President), Sandhya Rani (Member) and Stanly Harold (Member) held a Postman, Post Master and Senior Superintendent of Post Office liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the interview call letter for a Co-operative Bank due to Post Man’s ongoing family dispute with the complainant.
Brief Facts:
Nisha (“Complainant”), a B.Sc. Computer Science graduate, registered her name with the Employment Exchange in Kottarakkara, seeking employment. Her name appeared on the seniority list, and she was invited to attend an interview with the Velinalloor Service Co-operative Bank (“Bank”). However, the interview call letter was not delivered to her by the Postman (1st opposite party), who is a relative and neighbor. The complainant alleged that due to an ongoing family dispute and enmity with the Postman, he deliberately did not deliver the letter. As a result, the complainant could not attend the interview, and the bank reported that she had not appeared for it, causing her financial loss and mental distress. She sought compensation from the Postman, Post Master (2nd opposite party), and Senior Superintendent of Post Office (3rd opposite party).
The opposite parties contended that the non-delivery was not willful but due to the inability of the outsider delivery agents to identify the complainant. They argued that the complainant was not eligible for any compensation as she could not provide evidence that she would have obtained the job if she had attended the interview.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission found that the Postman deliberately did not deliver the interview call letter to the complainant due to an ongoing family dispute and enmity. This, according to the District Commission amounted to a dereliction of duty, which resulted in a deficiency in service.
Further, it noted that both Postman and Post Master submitted two contradictory reports regarding the complainant's residence. The first report suggested she was not residing at the address, while the second report confirmed her residence.
The District Commission held that the statutory exemption under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act as claimed by the opposite parties does not provide the postal officials with an unfettered license to cause irreparable loss and injury to consumers. Further, the District Commission rejected the argument that the complainant's potential employment was temporary. It emphasized that obtaining a position in a PSU is a significant opportunity for an unemployed individual, whether temporary or permanent.
Consequently, the District Commission concluded that there was a deficiency in service, as well as an unfair trade practice on the part of the postal officials. Therefore, it directed the Postman, the Post Master, and the Senior Superintendent of Post Office to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony, sufferings, financial loss, and the deficiency in service caused to her. The opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to the complainant as legal costs.
Case: Nisha vs The Postman
Case No.: CC.No.34/2019
Advocate for the Complainant: S. Pushpanandan
Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.