Per  Shri H. M. Pateriya – Hon’ble Member.

               The complainant filed this complaint before forum for redressal u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service and negligence in duty committed by opposite parties.  

              The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.            The opposite parties (India Post) are Central Government undertaking Post Office and giving various postal services to the public such as sending money order, registered letter, speed post, issue of N.S.C. etc.  

3.            The opposite parties (India Post) introduced Electronic Money Order (E.M.O.) on 10/10/2008 which aims to simplify the transmission process of money orders by ensuring quick and secure electronic transmission.  Time taken for transmission is very less and amount is paid within a day of booking.  The amount of money order is paid in cash at the door steps of the payee.  Facility for remitting money from one to one, one to many and many to one is available under this service.

4.            There was a marriage of complainant’s relative’s son Chi. Shaurabh with Chi. Sou. Kan. Kirti on 02/05/2015.  But due to certain unavoidable circumstances the complainant was unable to attend above said marriage.  So the complainant as per Hindu Custom decided to send “Shagun for marriage” on 27/04/2015 by Electronic Money Order (E.M.O.) through opposite party No. 2.  He sent the Shagun vide E.M.O. receipt no. 075064150427005966 at 12.15 hrs. with intention to be delivered within 2-3 days.  

5.            However the said E.M.O. was delivered on 12/05/2015 after delay of 14 days.  Due to non receipt of the shagun in time the complainant has to face humiliation and lot of criticism from family members.

6.            The complainant made a written complaint on 16/05/2015 to O. P. No. 1, regarding delay for 14 days in delivery of E.M.O.  The O. P. No. 2 replied with reference to complaint dated 16/05/2015 that as per the tracking details of E.M.O.. reach at date centre on 09/05/2015 and it is found that after roll out AVAD all communications had been stopped working.  TCS engineers had not migrated the server in indiapost.gov.in domains and due to which all communications not run properly.

7.            The complainant made enquiry by filling R.T.I. application on 13/08/2015 and dated 23/09/2015.  Through R.T.I. information complainant could not know the exact nature of fault for late delivery of E.M.O...   

8.            Hence the complainant prayed to award damages of Rs.15,000/- towards the deficiency of service, mental torture & suffering caused to him and also prayed to pay the legal expenses charges of  Rs.10,000/- by the opposite parties.

9.            The complainant has filed the list of documents at page no. 9 of the complaint.  

10.                   The complaint is registered and issued notices to the opposite parties.   After receiving the notices the opposite party appeared before the forum and filed their written statement on 26/02/2016.

11.                   The opposite parties denied the complaint and said delay is caused due to technical fault.  Apart from this as per clause 220 of Post Office Guide Rules Part-I which clearly mentioned that any delay caused in payment of money orders the department is not responsible and the delay is caused due to technical fault and there is no question of any deficiency of services on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint should be dismissed.

12.                   After hearing and going through the complaint and reply of both the opposite parties the following points came to be consideration. 

REASONING & FINDINGS

13.               As to point No. 1:-    There was a marriage on 02/05/2015 of the complainant’s relative’s son at Chhindwara (M.P.).  Due to some unavoidable circumstances the complainant is not able to attend the said marriage.  So as per Hindu Custom he decided to send “Shagun” for marriage Rs.111/- on 27/04/2015 by electronic money order (E.M.O.) through O. P. No. 2 believing that the Shagun would reach instantly i.e. within a day or two from the booking and would be delivered on or before marriage.  The copy of E.M.O. of the literature and receipt of E.M.O. is attached herewith at page no. 12.

              But the E.M.O. was delivered on 12/05/2015 i.e. after 14 days of booking and after marriage.  This fact is also accepted the opposite parties.  The complainant had also made the complaint on 16/05/2015 and also enquired the exact nature of fault for delayed delivery of the E.M.O. by filling R.T.I. application to the O. P. on dated 13/08/2015 & 23/09/2015.

              The opposite parties replied and accepted that the complainant had sent E.M.O. vide receipt no. 075064150427005966.  The O. P. has also accepted that the delay was caused due to non migration of server in indiapost.gov.in domain by TCS engineers.

              The opposite party on dated 13/10/2016 submitted before forum the E.M.O. sending status report from the period 27/04/2015 to 30/04/2015 at Gondia City Post Office.  The sending E.M.O. status report clearly shows that during the said period E.M.O. was delivered on 09/05/2015 by 13 days.

              It is thus clear that the complainant had paid the E.M.O. charges so that money order should reach to his relative immediately i.e. within a day or two as per the scheme advertised by the opposite parties.  But, the E.M.O. reached after 14 days i.e. after marriage ceremony.  This was happened due to non attendance of fault occurred in the computerized system of E.M.O. by the concerned officer of the post and the engineer of T.C.S.

              The learned counsel for the O. P. submitted that as the delay was caused due to technical fault in computer system as per sec. 6 of the Indian Postal Act, as well as clause 22 (2) of the Post Office Guide Part-I, the post office and it’s employees can not be held responsible for the damages on account of late delivery of money order.  In support of his arguments he has relied on Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Rev. Petition No. 986 of 1996 – The Post Master, Imphal & Ors. v/s Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband.  Where in it has been observed:-

              “Therefore, in number cases this Commission has taken the view that no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of the postal article.  A postal employee may be made liable provided an action was brought against him and it was proved that he was guilty of fraud or willful act or default leading to the loss of the postal article or non-delivery thereof.  In the instant case the complaint has been made against the Postmaster and Director General of the Postal Service.  There is no allegation of any fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any one of the respondents.  The complaint, therefore, must fail and be dismissed.

              Countering the above arguments the complainant submitted that the objection that complaint is barred by sec. 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act has no application in the case where the charge of deficiency in service is alleged by the complainant.  To support his argument he has relied on following authorities.

(1)   I (2010) CPJ 310 (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) – Post Master, Rajinder Nagar P. O. v/s Ashok Kriplani.

              Wherein it is observed - (5) It appears that right of privacy of the respondent has been infringed by a particular postman.  So far as the objection that the complaint was barred by Sections 6 and 48 of Indian Post Office Act it has no substance as the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises from the charge of deficiency in service and is additional remedy and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force including Indian Post Office Act as no other statute except Consumer Protection Act provide for compensation as to the mental agony, harassment, loss arising from the charge of deficiency in service.

(2)      II (2011) CPJ 73 (NC) – Post Master General, Kerala & Ors. v/s Kiron Rasheed

     In the said judgment National Commission observed :-

     Coming to the merits, the only substantive ground for challenge to the order of the Kerala State Disputes Redressal Commission is that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the RP/OP incurs no liability for loss, misdelivery or damage/delay in delivery, except when caused fraudulently or willfully.  This ground was raised before, and examined in sufficient detail, in the impugned order.  The State Commission has very rightly observed that this provision “is not in any way connected with the modernized forms of transactions like speed post, e-mail, money transfer, etc.”

              Thus from the recent authorities relied upon by the complainant it is clear that action against the post office for the delayed delivery of E.M.O. i.e. for deficiency in service is maintainable before the fora u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, the objection raised by the O. P. regarding the tenability and the jurisdiction of the complaint holds no water.  Hence, finding of point No. 1 is recorded in the affirmative.

14.               As to point No. 2 & 3:-      In the present case the complainant paid E. Money Order charges Rs. 6/- and sent money order of Rs. 111/- for wedding ceremony.  The E.M.O. was booked on 27/04/2015 and it was delivered on 12/05/2015.  It was reasonable expectation of the complainant that E.M.O. would deliver before the marriage scheduled on 02/05/2015, but it was delivered after solemnization of marriage after 15 days of the booking.  This inordinate delay in delivery of E.M.O. is not justified for the lame excuse that the computerize system was failure and it was not repaired by the concerned engineer.  Such unreasonable delay in delivering E.M.O. definitely amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant are entitled for reasonable damages.

              Considering the purpose of sending E.M.O. as a gift in the marriage and its amount of Rs.111/- it will be justified to grant damages for inconvenience and suffering to the extent of Rs.2,000/- with cost of this complaint Rs.1,000/- for the above reason findings as to points No. 2 & 3 are recorded accordingly.  

              For the above reasons order is passed as under:-

-: FINAL ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the compensation for mental torture & agony to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. 

3.            The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4.            The opposite parties are directed to pay interest at 9% p.a. to the complainant in case of the payment above mentioned amount made after expiry of 30 days from the date of order.

5.            The opposite parties are directed to comply the above order jointly or severally.