BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARDAppella vs NITISH PRATAP SINGH

BOTH the appeals are same. However the respondents are different persons but the point of decision in both the cases are same hence this common judgment shall govern both the appeals. Appeal No. 30/2000 has been preferred against the order dated 7.10.1999 passed by District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 384/1998 directing the appellant to pay Rs. 300/- as compensation within two months from the date of order. Appeal No. 42/2000 has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.1999 passed by District Forum, Patna in Complaint Case No. 407/1998directing the appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1 as compensation within two months from the date of the order.

THE common fact in both the appeals are that complainant-respondent No. 1 of both the appeals filed complaint petition for award of compensation alleging that they had registered an application to BCECE through registered post on 3.6.1998 along with Bank Draft but inspite of that BCECE appellant did not issue the admit card to the respondent, hence they could not appeared in the examination and suffered one year of their career. In Appeal No. 42/2000 the District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- against the Post Master of Bihar Veterinary College on the ground that due to its deficiency the registered letter did not reach to the appellant. The contention of the appellant in Appeal No. 30/2000 is that there was no deficiency on its part nor the complaint case is maintainable against the appellant. The appellant has not received registered letter, hence there was no question of issuing admit card. If there was any deficiency it was on the part of the Postal Authority. Annexure-1 show that registered letter has not reached to the appellant till 13.6.1998. The learned respondents Lawyer submitted that he got the registered letter posted through the Post Office (respondent No. 2) on the correct address to the appellant, therefore, if the letter was not delivered it was the fault of the Post Office.

The learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the Appeal No. 42/2000 submitted that Postal Authorities cannot be held liable for non-delivery of the registered articles and they are protected under Section 6 of the Postal Act unless it is proved that any Postal Authority/Postman wilfully and negligently did not deliver the article to the addressee. In that case only that person shall be liable for default. The respondents Lawyer appearing in this appeal submitted that from the receipt granted by the Postal Authority it is clear that complainant has registered the letter correctly addressed to the appellant. It is difficult for the complainant to ascertain of whose fault the letter was not delivered to the addressee.

FROM the submissions made on behalf of the parties in both the appeals we are of the view that there is substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant in Appeal No. 30/2000. The District Forum has held liable the appellant-BCECE for deficiency in service. We have carefully perused the impugned order and the materials on record and find that there is nothing on record to show that registered letter was delivered within time to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant has specifically denied that from Annexure-1 it is clear that till 13.6.1998 the registered letter alleged to have been sent by the complainant has not reached to its office. In that case it was not possible for the appellant to issue admit card. If there was any fault it was on the part of the Postal Department. We fully agree with this contention of the appellant in this appeal. We are of the view that complainant has not been able to furnish that registered letter has reached within time as alleged, to the addressee (appellant) but the admit card was not issued. Under these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service against the appellant in Appeal No. 30/2000.

IN Appeal No. 42/2000 the District Forum has held respondent No. 2 for deficiency in service. We find substance in this contention on behalf of respondent No. 2 that Postal Department is not liable for prosecution before Consumer Forum for non-delivery of the postal article. This fact is not in dispute that registered letter has not reached the appellant-BCECE and it was misdelivered. Therefore, neither the appellant nor the respondent No. 2 Postmaster can be held negligent for deficiency in service. Therefore, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeals allowed.