Appeal No. 765 of 2012. Case: N.U. Azam Vs Postal Department. Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Case NumberAppeal No. 765 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Hemant Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Rajeev Jain, Advocate
JudgesNeeraja Singh, Presiding Member and S.D. Agarwal, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationI (2016) CPJ 116
Judgement DateJanuary 11, 2016
CourtJharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Order:

Neeraja Singh, Presiding Member

  1. This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, dismissing his complaint against the opposite party, Post Office, in CC No. 436/11. The case of the appellant, who is appointed as an Asstt. Engineer in the M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd., is that in February 2010 he was on leave. On 10th February, his employer sent him a registered letter, informing him that he had been promoted. He was asked to join at Shivpuri within 30 days, else the promotion would be cancelled automatically. As he was out of station, his house was locked. Respondent No. 3, the postman, had come to him in January 2010 asking for a tip. He refused to give him any money. The appellant alleges that aggrieved by this, the postman did not deliver the promotion letter. When he rejoined his office, he learnt that such a letter had been sent. He wrote to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, enquiring about the whereabouts of the letter and was informed that the post had been delivered. The delivery list presented by the respondent did not have his signature. Due to the willful act of the postman, he was deprived of his promotion which resulted in a loss of enhanced salary. He has claimed compensation and costs.

  2. The respondents state that the letter was delivered to the appellant's sister, as per the appellant's telephonic instructions. They aver that he did not want to receive the letter as he knew he was being sent out of Gwalior on promotion.

  3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. It was held that documents show that the appellant was on unauthorized absence from 14.12.2009 to 10.5.2010. He joined on 11.5.2010 and again stopped going from 8.6.2010 to 2.9.2010. He was a regular absentee and was in the habit of avoiding taking letters sent to him by his Department. Had he actually not received the letter, he would have informed his department and asked for extension of the joining date, which he did not do.

  4. Heard.

  5. The appellant has stated that he did not receive the registered letter. The respondent avers that the postman went to deliver the letter. The premises were locked and the appellant telephonically told the postman to deliver the letter at his sister's residence. They further allege that the appellant purposely avoided taking the letter so that he would not have to go out of Gwalior on promotion. The appellant has denied on...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT