MANOJ KUMAR SINGH vs POST MASTER , Secretary, Department Of Post And Telegraph

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. FA-06/358 - Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. The Secretary, Department of Post & Telegraph & Anr. by which the order of the District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge Jr. Division in Chattisgarh Public Service Commission. Application was sent through speed post and was dispatched on 22.9.2004 from Delhi Tis Hazari post office to Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission which was delivered back to the respondent on 24.9.2004 in place of the addressee in consequence whereof the complainant could not appear in the examination and meanwhile he became over age. So, he claimed compensation of Rs.4.90 lakh. Opposite party denied claim. District Forum allowed complaint and directed respondent to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with Rs.1000/- as cost. Respondent preferred appeal against that order and State Commission vide order dated 28.8.2006 modified the order of the District Forum without hearing petitioner/complainant and reduced compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.5,000/- against which petitioner/complainant filed revision petition before the National Commission and the National Commission vide its order dated 9.11.2010 set aside the order of the State Commission and directed the State Commission to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties. After remand the matter was heard by learned State Commission and vide impugned order appeal was allowed and complaint was dismissed.

HEARD the petitioner in person and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that impugned order may be set aside and either order dated 13.3.2006 passed by the learned District Forum be confirmed or at least compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- already received by him from the respondent may be confirmed.

LEARNED State Commission has rightly observed that complainant himself cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own mistake in writing address of himself as well as addressee contrary to the guidelines of post office and further rightly observed that Rule 6 of the Post Office Act exempts Post Office from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless that has been caused fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. Petitioner could not show that delivery of envelope to the petitioner was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default on the part of the respondent. In such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission does not require any interference.

AS far upholding the order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the State Commission by which compensation was reduced and total Rs.6,000/- were paid by the respondent to the petitioner, this order has already been set aside by Hon''ble National Commission and in such circumstances, order dated 28.8.2006 passed by learned State Commission cannot be looked into and compensation paid by the respondent to the petitioner under this order cannot be protected. Respondent is free to recover the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner under the order dated 28.8.2006 which has been set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.