The court emphasized the duty of the postal service to ensure timely and proper delivery of registered letters, and held that negligence in delivery can lead to liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants, i.e., the Chief Postmaster General, Orissa, Superintendent Post Office, South Division, Cuttack and Branch Postmaster, Balijhari Post Office, Cuttack challenging the judgment and order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the Cuttack District Forum in C.D. Case No. 288 of 1996 directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant for loosing a seat in +2 Arts in BJB College, Bhubaneswar and suffering mental agony on account of delayed delivery of registered intimation letter regarding admission to the said College. It was directed that the amount be recovered from the concerned delivery agent, for whose wilful negligence, the delay was caused and the complainant was put to suffering and loss.

2. The fact of the case is that the Principal, BJB College, Bhubaneswar despatched a registered intimation letter to the complainant Bijay Kumar Rout for his admission in +2 Arts. The complainant addressee is coming under Balijhari Post Office. The letter of intimation was sent on 1.8.1995 and reached at Balijhari Post Office on the very next day, but the same was delivered to the complainant on 8.8.1995. After receipt of the letter, the complainant opened it and found that he was required to present himself in the College for admission on the very same day, i.e., on 8.8.1995 between 11 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., failing which he was to forfeit the seat and it was further stipulated in the intimation letter that no extension of time would be allowed.

3. The opposite party No. 2 in the written version stated that the delay in delivery was due to absence of the addressee during the period from 2.8.1995 to 7.8.1995, but this has been refuted by the complainant by stating that he was all along present in his residence. It is the case of the complainant that due to negligence in delivering the letter, the complainant was made to loose the chance of getting admission in a reputed college like BJB College and on that count claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties. The father of the complainant sworn an affidavit in support of the fact alleged in the complaint.

4. The opposite parties took the same plea that although the letter was received on 2.8.1995, it could not be delivered to the addressee because he was absent from 2.8.1995 to 7.8.1995 and only on 8.8.1995 it was delivered to him and as such there was no laches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of delivery of the letter. It is also argued that since it was a registered letter, it could not have been delivered to any other person than the addressee and when the addressee was available it was delivered to him and there was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5. Although the complainant did not turn up during hearing of the complaint petition in the District Forum, the Counsel for the opposite parties appeared and presented the fact, as noted above, and the District Forum after considering all aspects of the matter and not believing the fact that the complainant was actually absent from the village and observing that if at all the complainant was absent, it could have been delivered to any of the family member including the father, which is usually done by the Postman or the delivery agents, held the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service for causing immense loss and suffering to the complainant in depriving him of getting admission in a reputed college.

6. During hearing of the appeal, we only heard the learned Counsel Mr. R.C. Swain appearing for the appellants. No body appears for the complainant / respondent. It is submitted by Mr. Swain, the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the registered letter is never handed over to any other person than the addressee, the letter was not delivered to any of the family members of the complainant. At the same time, he expressed his surprise regarding the reaching of the r