Haryana

Ambala

CC/417/2018

Tarsem Nath Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director General Department of Post - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Sharma

09 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                           Complaint case no.         :  417 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :  14.12.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :  09.10.2019.

Tarsem Nath Kaushal son of Sh. R.D. Kaushal, resident of House No.347, Sector-10, Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant.

1.       Director General, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2.       Post Master, Head Post Office, near Bus Stand, Ambala City.

3.       Post Master, Post Office, Roop Nagar Jammu Tawi, S.O. 180013, Jammu Tawi (J&K)

                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.        

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                    

Present:       Shri Keshav Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri R.K.Sobti, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To return the amount of Rs.3,255/- (i.e Rs.3,100/-+Rs.155/- as money order charges) along with interest @ 24% per annum.
2.  To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, and physical and financial harassments, suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

 

382.  

Any other relief which  this Hon’ble Forum may deem  fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.2018, the complainant sent Shagun of Rs. 3100/- through money order vide receipt No. 38744197993372000, on the occasion of marriage of his friend’s son, Shri Shaminder Kumar, R/o H.No.145/4 Roop Nagar Hills, Roop Nagar, Jammu Tawi,  through OP No.2. He paid a total sum of Rs.3255/- i.e Rs.3100/- on account of Shagun and Rs.155/- as money order charges to OP No.2. In the first week of March 2018, he conveyed his wishes to his friend and told him regarding sending of shagun through money order. But, his friend told him that he had not received any money order. On 13.06.2018, he lodged a complaint No.10008349977 on the portal of postal Department regarding non-payment of the shagun amount, but could not get any response from the OPs.  On finding the status of his complaint through track online, he came to know that the OP No.3 had received the said amount of Rs.3100/-, on 03.03.2018 for further disbursement, but it did not disburse the said amount to his friend. He requested the OP No.2 several times to look into the matter, but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other and never gave any satisfactory reply. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable because as per Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the Post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery of delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. Even, as per Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Govt. or any officer of the Post Office. Furthermore, as per Section 84 of Indian Post Office Guide part-I which is reproduced as under:-

“The Indian Post Office is exempted by law from all responsibility in the case of loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by Post”. The Department of Post is exempted by law from all the responsibility in the case of loss, mis-delivery, delay or damages of any Postal article in course of transmission by post. On merits, the OPs admitted that the complainant booked one Money order on 28.02.2018, vide No.038744197993372000 of Rs.3100/- from Ambala City H.O. and commission of Rs.155/- was paid for the service and the eMO was addressed to Shri Shaminder Kumar, r/o 145/4, Roop Nagar Hills, Roop Nagar, Jammu Tawi. It is also admitted that the complaint regarding non-payment of eMO was got registered by the complainant through online portal, vide complaint No. 100083-49977, on 13.06.2018. The enquiries through the web complaint revealed that due to introduction of new online software i.e CSI, the said complaint/emo was technically stucks/held up in the system during the process of transmission of the electronic money order and the said money could not be paid. The procedure of payment of duplicate money order in case of non payment of electronic money order involves exercise through the origin/booking office but the complainant did not approach the booking office for the said issue. Neither reminder was issued by the complainant in the web complaint nor he lodged any complaint with the OPs. After receiving the summons, the case was noticed and duplicate money order was issued by Ambala City H.O on 03.01.2019 and the same was paid to the addressee, on 08.01.2019. Since, the money order has already been delivered to the addressee, therefore, question to refund the amount of money order and payment of compensation does not arise at all and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove the version, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Radhika Dhir, Sr. Superintendent of Post offices, Ambala and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant, sent a money order of Rs.3100/- as Shagun to his friend on the occasion of the marriage of his son, which was to be solemnised in the first week of March 2018, through OPs. However, the OPs delivered the said money order on 08.01.2019, after a delay of more than 9 months from the date of marriage of the son of the complainant’s friend and that to after filing of the present complaint. It is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and are thus liable to compensate the complainant adequately.

The learned counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the money order in question was duly delivered to the addressee by the OPs. As per Section 6, Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act-1898 and Section 84 of Post Office Guide Part-1, the post office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

From the perusal of Section 6 and Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act,1898 which reads as under:

“6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

“48. Exemption from liability in respect of Money Order­.-No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of:-

1. Anything done under any rules made by the [Central Government]  under this chapter; or
2. The wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provider that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or
3. The payment of any money-order being refused or delayed by, or on account of, any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by, or on the part of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer;
4. Any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order;
5. Any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of [India] by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the [Central Government].

         It is quite clear that the claim for compensation will lie at the instance of the Consumer only if consumer proves that delay was caused fraudulently or by willful act or by default by the officials of the post office. It may be stated here that in the present case neither the complainant has alleged nor it has been proved that the delay in the delivery of the money order was caused on account of fraud or willful act of any of the postal officials. In the case of Post Master, Imphal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 1(2000) CPJ 28 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has held that Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898  very clearly lays down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except insofar as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as provided by the statute and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, in the case of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Versus Rajbir Singh, decided on 26.10.2016, has held that:- Since the complainant has not raised allegation against any individual official and did not lead any evidence to prove that the loss was caused on account of fraud of willful act or any default on the part of the postal officials, the appellants-opposite parties cannot be held liable to pay compensation, in view of the Section 6 and Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

       In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :09.10.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President