M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, in OP.No.2/2004.
(2.) The respondent herein, approached the Consumer Forum, Nagapattinam, seeking a claim of Rs.2 lakhs, on the following grounds.The complainant had applied for the post of Sugarcane Inspector, on seeing the advertisement on 19.10.2003, and in pursuant to the same, an interview card was sent, fixing the date of interview as 26.11.2003, which was received by the post office, viz. 2nd opposite party, in which the 1st opposite party was working as a post man, on 24.11.2003. The 1st opposite party opened the letter, noted the contents, and willfully failed to deliver the same on 24.11.2003, whereas, he has delivered the same on 27.11.2008, after the date of interview was over. Because of the willful act and deficiency in service committed by the 1st opposite party, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for the loss sustained by the complainant, which is quantified at Rs.2 lakhs.
(3.) The appellant/ opposite parties, denying all the averments, in the petition, have stated that the 1st opposite party was on leave for the period from 24.11.2003 to 26.11.2003, and during which time, there was a substitute postman, that on receipt of the letter on 24.11.2003, the substitute postman enquired and found that the fathers name of the addressee was noted as Rajam instead of Rajangam, and therefore he was unable to deliver the letter, that the 1st opposite party, who is a local man, after returning to duty on 27.11.2003, knowing the addressee personally, despite difference in the fathers name, delivered the letter and that in view of Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, they are not liable to be proceeded for delay, and this being the position, there was no delay of any kind or deficiency in service, thereby prayed for dismissal of the complaint.;