BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 16/2007 Filed on 10.01.2007 Dated : 15.07.2009 Complainant:
K. Ramachandran, Sathi Nivas, T.C 22/426(2), Konchiravila, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties:
The Director of Post Master, P.M.G, Thiruvananthapuram. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Mettukkada, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 15.06.2009, the Forum on 15.07.2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant in this case had sent an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to his son Sreejesh S.R Chandran, who is working as Quality Assurance Inspector at Rajcot on 06.09.2006 as per receipt No. A 4447 to meet the expenses of his treatment. He was treated for infective hepatitis and Malaria. Due to the non-receipt of money order he has suffered very much mental agony and to meet the treatment expenses he sold his gold chain and reached Thiruvananthapuram on 12.10.2006. He was hospitalised on 13.10.2006 at P.R. S Hospital. After the treatment he joined his job at Rajkot, but the money was not received till 24.10.2006. The complainant sent complaints to the postal authorities on 12.09.2006 and 15.09.2006. But he did not receive any favourable reply from the postal authorities. On 25.10.2006 Mathrubhumi daily published his complaint and thereafter his son informed him that the money order was received by him on 28.10.2006. As per the complainant due to the inordinate delay in receiving the money order he and his son suffered very much mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint.
The 2nd opposite party, the Superintendent of Post Office filed version for and on behalf of 1st opposite party Director of Post Office. In the version they contend the allegations against them. They stated that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. They have further stated that the 2nd opposite party has received the complaint from the complainant on 14.09.2006 for the alleged non-payment of the money order. Soon after the complaint, they started enquiry about the complaint. On 22.09.2006 SPM, Veraval intimated that the above money order was not received at his end for payment. This was communicated to SPM Manacaud P.O with the request to intimate whether the Money Order in question was received back as unpaid and if not to issue duplicate M.O under intimation to 2nd opposite party. SPM, Manacaud intimated that the MO in question was not received at his end and a duplicate M.O was issued on 09.10.2006. The M.O in question was paid to the payee only on 28.10.2006 as per the web based reply furnished by Rajkot CCC. The opposite parties stated that M.O was consigned to computerised registration centre, Thiruvananthapuram RMS/11 on 06.09.2006 itself and HRO Tvpm RMS confirmed the receipt of the MO by TV RMS II and the despatch of the same Rajkot RMS by TVPM RMS on 07.09.2006. In response to another search bill issued to locate the point of delay occurred in effecting payment of the duplicate M.O, SPM, Veraval has intimated that “The M.O is till return w/o payment to office of issue SO. Payee is left without address.” The delay in effecting payment of the M.O cannot be attributed to the department only. The non-availability of the payee at the receiving station also contributes to the delay. The opposite parties also stated that further immediately when the remitter has noticed that the M.O sent by him was not received by the payee, when he returned to the native place, he could have contacted the office of issue, to refund the money to the remitter. In such case DMO would have been issued immediately to the remitter. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the opposite parties for delay or wrong payment of money orders sent through post. Sec. 48(c) and Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act 1898 provide absolute immunity from liability to officers of the Post Office. The complainant has no case against the opposite party that any official working in the post office had committed fraud. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1, the opposite parties cross examined him. From the side of complainant 12 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P12. The opposite parties produced 8 documents, which were marked as Exts. D1 to D8.
Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for? Costs.
Points (i) to (iii):- In this case there is no dispute regarding the sending of money order. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has booked one money order from Manacaud P.O on 06.09.2006 under M.O No. A 4447 to the payee Sri. Sreejesh S.R. Chandran, Jagadish Technocast Pvt. Ltd. Survey No.213, N.H 8 B, Veraval, shapur, Rajkot, Pin – 360 002. The complainant sent the money order to meet the treatment expenses of his son. He was treated for infective Hepatitis and Malaria in a hospital in Rajkot. Due to non-receipt of the money order, he suffered a lot and he had sold his gold chain to meet the hospital expenses. To prove the contentions of the complainant, the complainant has produced 12 documents. Ext. P1 is the copies of treatment records of the complainant's son at Rajkot. Ext. P2 is the copy of letter issued by the employer company of Sreejesh to the ICICI bank. This document is the evidence that the complainant is working as Supervisor, Quality Assurance Inspector in Jagadish Technocast at Rajkot. The address shown in the document is the same as in the money order form. Ext. P3 is the copy of discharge summary of Sreejesh in connection with the treatment in P.R.S Hospital. In this document the date of admission is 13.10.2006. Ext. P4 is the treatment records of Sreejesh in PRS Hospital. Exts. P5 to P7 are the copies of bills issued by the PRS Hospital for the treatment expenses of Sreejesh. Ext. P8 is the copy of paper cutting in which the news published regarding the non-receipt of the money order sent by the complainant. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the non-receipt of money order dated 12.09.2006 and the copy of reply sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 15.09.2006. Ext. P11 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 06.11.2006 claiming compensation for the delay in receiving money order. In this letter the complainant stated that the money order received on 28.10.2006 i.e, after a lapse of 53 days, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- has been spent by him due to the delay. The reply of opposite party also attached in Ext. P11. Ext. P12 is the copy of letter issued by the opposite party informing the complainant that the matter was settled on 30.10.2006 with the information that the M.O was paid to the payee on 28.10.2006. Contending the claim of the complainant the opposite parties produced 8 documents. The documents marked as Ext. D1 is the copy of letter dated 14.09.2006 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. In that letter the complainant requests the opposite party to take necessary action to get the amount to the payee. From the documents furnished by the complainant and in his deposition the complainant stated that his son reached Thiruvananthapuram on 13.09.2006. He returned and reached Rajkot on 24.10.2006. In that letter the complainant should have informed the matter that his son was here and even if the money order had not reached at Rajkot, it would be paid from there. Ext. D2 is the communication letter issued by the 2nd opposite party to the Manacaud SPM enquiring whether the M.O was returned to the remitter, if so date of payment should be intimated, dated 26.09.2006. Ext D3 is the communication letter dated 04.10.2006. In this letter the Manacaud SPM reported that the M.O in question has not been paid to the remitter and as instructed DMO has been issued on 09.10.2006. Ext. D4 is the copy of the web based reply furnished by Rajkot CCC. The M.O in question was paid to the payee only on 28.10.2006 as per this document. In this document we can see that the SPM Veraval has reported that the M.O in question was not received by them till 22.09.2006 and they requested the opposite parties to issue DMO. From this document the DMO was sent on 09.10.2006. Ext. D5 is the copy of report from HRO, TV RMS. This document is the evidence that the MO despatched to Rajkot RMS by TVM RMS on 07.09.2006. Ext. D6 is the reply of SPM Veraval to the letter issued by opposite party to ascertain the reason for the delay in payment of DMO till 28.10.2006. In that document the reason for the delay is stated as “The M.O is till return w/o payment to office of issue SO. Payee is left without address.” From Ext. D6 document we can find that the DMO was not received till October 2006. The DMO sent only 09.10.2006 from Thiruvananthapuram. Ext. D7 is the copy of Post Office Guide Part I Rule 69(1). As per this rule persons changing their address should furnish the post office both at the place which they leaving and at the place to which they are going with written instructions regarding the disposal of the postal articles received to their address. Ext. D8 is the copy of Post manual Vol VI Part II Sixth Edition Pages from 155 to 160 relating to Rule 79(2). This document describes the condition of issuance of DMO. Due to the technicalities of this rule, the M.O in question was seen received and paid to the payee only on 28.10.2006 on his reaching Veraval back from Kerala.
We have carefully perused the documents and evidences of both sides. In this case the complainant had sent the money order on 06.09.2006. The amount received only on 28.10.2006 i.e; after 52 days. The complainant alleged that the delay in payment of money order was due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties stated that there was no wilful fault or negligence from their side. As per Ext. D5 document the money order despatched to Rajkot RMS by Tvpm RMS on 07.09.2006 i.e the next day itself. But as per Ext. D4 document the money order in question was not received at Veraval till 22.09.2006. And thereafter on 09.10.2006 DMO was sent from Thiruvananthapuram to Veraval and the payee received the M.O on 28.10.2006. The money order was sent from Manacaud to Rajkot on 06.09.2006. The complainant's son reached Tvpm on 12.10.2006. As per the deposition of the complainant “പന്ത്രണ്ടാം തീയതി രാത്രി പത്തരയ്ക്ക് വീട്ടില് എത്തി. Train-ലാണ് എത്തിയത്. അവിടെ നിന്ന് രണ്ട് ദിവസത്തെ യാത്രയുണ്ട്.” From the deposition of the complainant, complainant's son started his journey from Rajkot to Thiruvananthapuram on 10.09.2006. Complainant sent complaint to the opposite parties on 12.09.2006. As per the documents produced by the opposite parties, the opposite parties have taken steps to trace out the money order. But the money order has not reached at Veraval till 22.09.2006 and thereafter they have taken steps to sent duplicate money order and the duplicate money order received by the payee on 28.10.2006. But there is delay in paying money order in time. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate for that delay. The complainant argued that he and his son suffered huge financial loss and sufferings for the delay in payment of the M.O. But the arguments of the complainant is not sustainable. It is not due to the delay in payment of Money Order, the complainant's son suffered illness and he has undergone treatment and met the treatment expenses. It is true that due to the non-payment of the money order at Rajkot in time they have suffered some mental agony. For that mental agony the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the entire amount above mentioned.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of July 2009.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 16/2007 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Ramachandran. K II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of Haemogram report, Biochemistry Report and prescription of complainant's son. P2 - Copy of letter dated 05.07.06 issued by Jagdish Technocast P3 - Copy of discharge summary dated 15.10.2006. P4 - Copy of Laboratory report dated 13.10.2006 & 18.10.2006 P5 - Copy of cash bill of pharmacy. P6 - Copy of cash bill issued from PRS Hospital. P7 - Copy of Malaria Blood Examination Report dated 24.10.2006. P8 - Copy of matter published in Mathrubhumi Daily Newspaper. P9 - Copy of receipt of money order and acknowledgement. P10 - Copy of letter dated 15.09.2006 issued of Superintendent of Post Offices, Tvpm South Division. P11 - Copy of letter dated 16.11.2006 issued by Assistant Director(CC), O/o the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Tvpm. P12 - Copy of letter dated 30.10.2006 issued by Superintendent of Post Offices, Tvpm South Division.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Original letter dated 14.09.2006 addressed to the Manager, Customer Care Centre. D2 - Web based Customer Grievance Handling System dated 26.09.2006 Annexure- II. D3 - Web based Customer Grievance Handling System dated 04.10.2006 Annexure- III. D4 - Web based Customer Grievance Handling System dated 26.09.2006 Annexure- IV D5 - Letter dated 05.11.2006 issued to Head Record Officer Airmail Sorting Division, Mumbai by the Head Record Officer, RMS, Tvpm. D6 - Copy of letter dated 01.02.2007 issued the SPM, Manacaud by the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Tvpm South Division. D7 - Copy of post Office Guide D8 - Copy of Postal Manual Vol. VI, Part II, Sixth Edition pages from 155 to 160. PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
