SUKALYAN PATNAIK vs GOOD LUCK COMMERCIAL SERVICE

THE complainant in this case has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5.5 lakhs for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not delivering an application sent by him pursuant to an advertisement published in different newspapers inviting applications from intending candidates for various posts in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. THE complainant applied for the post of an Assistant. THE last date of receiving such application was fixed to 17.12.93 which was subsequently extended to 27.12.93. THE complainant sent an application through Courier Service of the opposite party to L.I.C. of India, Post Box No. 19447, Bombay-93 on 10.12.93. He paid the charges for the Courier Service as is evident from the receipt granted by the opposite party on the aforesaid date for Rs. 20/-. On 29.12.93 the complainant received back the envelop from a Post man with the endorsement thereon that it was unpaid letter. It has presumably because the latter has not been put by the Courier in the P.B. No. 19447, but in some other Post Box for which the Post Office on receipt the envelop marked as "unpaid letter" as the letter did not bear any postal stamp. As a consequence of non-delivery of the letter, the complainant claimed to have lost a fair chance of success in the examination which was scheduled to be held for recruitment to the post and claimed to have suffered loss and injury which he has assessed at Rs. 5.5 lakhs.

THE opposite parties did not appear nor filed any show cause pursuant to notice served on them. During the course of hearing the complainant produced the letter in original which was received back by him in a closed envelop in order in evidence of the fact that the letter contained the application along with the Demand Draft as alleged and other requirements as per the advertisement. THE same was opened in the Court and we found that the allegation of the complainant that he had sent the application pursuant to the advertisement, is correct. This is a clear case where, having offered their services, the opposite parties did not deliver the letter to the addressee for which charges were paid to them. The complainant has, however, not given any evidence as to the details of his claim except mentioning in the complaint petition that he claims compensation of Rs. 5.00/- lakhs and assessed his mental agony at Rs. 50,000/-. This in our opinion is arbitrary and exaggerated. It goes without saying that for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant lost the chance of appearing in the recruitment examination of the L.I.C. India and it cannot be denied that he had a chance of success. In the aforesaid circumstances we assess the compensation due to deficiency in service at Rs. 5,000/- which we direct the opposite parties who are jointly and sever ally liable to pay to the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the above amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. Complaint allowed.