A Speed Post letter that crawled to its destination and cost an unemployed man the chance of a job has earned the postal department the wrath of India\u2019s top consumer court, which pulled it up for deficiency in service and ordered payment of compensation.<\/p>\n
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the pleas of head post master in Rajasthan\u2019s Alwar town and post master of Jaipur\u2019s Sitapura Industrial Area seeking a reduction in the Rs.20,000 penalty imposed on them and said: \u201cWe feel that Rs.20,000 can in no way compensate the respondent for the lost opportunity.\u201d<\/p>\n
Commission\u2019s Presiding Member V.B. Gupta and Member Rekha Gupta directed the postal department to pay complainant and Alwar resident Neeraj Gupta Rs.10,000 as compensation for not delivering his job application in the same city within the prescribed time of 24 hours in 2010.<\/p>\n
In its recent order, the apex consumer commission also directed the department to deposit Rs.10,000 in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the commission by July 20.<\/p>\n
The department\u2019s attempt to wriggle out of the mess did not go down well with the commission.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is indeed surprising to note that in respect of the inordinate delay in delivery of the Speed Post article which had cost an unemployed youth his chances for obtaining a job, the department is trying to get out by paying a paltry compensation of Rs.20,000 to Gupta,\u201d said the commission.<\/p>\n
The postal department had appealed in the national commission against a state consumer commission\u2019s judgment in favour of Gupta. The apex consumer commission has now upheld the state commission\u2019s verdict.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the state commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is dismissed on merit as well as on limitation with cost of Rs.20,000,\u201d said the national commission.<\/p>\n
The postal department \u201cis a service provider and the Consumer Protection Act should be consumer-friendly and not one which works against the interest of the consumer\u201d, the national commission said, rejecting the contention that Gupta was not entitled to compensation.<\/p>\n
The national commission also frowned over the litigation cost the department would have incurred in its bid to avoid paying the Rs.20,000 penalty.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petitioner should also see whether it is justifiable and fair to deny paying a meagre compensation of Rs.20,000 to the consumer by spending far more on legal expenses in fighting the case in different fora,\u201d the national commission said.<\/p>\n
Gupta said in his complaint he posted his job application letter through Speed Post Dec 23, 2010, for the office of district parishad, Alwar, that had invited applications for the post of gram sewak and ex-officio secretary.<\/p>\n
He said the last date for applying for the job was Dec 27, 2010, and at the time of sending the letter the postal staff told him that it would be delivered by Dec 24, 2010.<\/p>\n
Gupta said the letter returned to his house Dec 30, 2010, without any official explanation.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen I inquired from the postal staff about the returning of the job application letter, I was not given a satisfactory reply,\u201d Gupta said.<\/p>\n
The complainant said he then inquired from the district parishad, Alwar, as to why his job application was returned. \u201cI was told that the forms which were received by them after the prescribed time limit were not accepted and returned,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
When it became clear that the letter was returned due to the postal department\u2019s negligence and deficiency in service, Gupta filed an application in the district forum for compensation.<\/p>\n
(Source:IANS)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Speed Post letter that crawled to its destination and cost an unemployed man the chance of a job has earned the postal department the wrath of India\u2019s top consumer court, which pulled it up for deficiency in service and ordered payment of compensation. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the pleas of head […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-top-law-news"],"yoast_head":"\n