Haryana

Panchkula

CC/220/2015

MUKESH K.GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INCHARGE ,POST OFFICE. - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG.

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	220 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	08.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.01.2016

 

Sh.Mukesh K.Garg s/o Late Sh.Brij Lal r/o House No.1001- Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.The Superintendent/Incharge, Post Office Sector 4, District Panchkula (Haryana) through incharge/authorized signatory Post Office Sector 4 District Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.

2.Ms.Sushma Miglani, Post Master, Post Office Sector 4, District Panchkula (Haryana) through incharge/authorized signatory Post Office Sector 4 District Panchkula (Haryana) 134112

3.Ms.Shivangi Sharma, Post Master, Post Office Sector 4, District Panchkula (Haryana) through incharge/authorized signatory Post Office Sector 4 District Panchkula (Haryana) 134112.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Kunal Garg,Adv.for the complainant.   

Ms.Veena Bhutani, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he had sent two money orders on 20.08.2015 of Rs.500/- each alongwith Rs.25/- each as commission to be delivered to Ms.Rekha Goyal H.No.299/2, Gold Burry Street, Ferozpur Cantt, Punjab and Ms.Usha Mittal, P-3A/53/Princeton Estate DLF Phase-5, Gurgaon. The Ops have charged the commission with the assurance that the money orders would be sent within 24 hours  of the receipt issued by OP No.3. The complainant had sent a token of love by sending money orders on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan but the money orders have never been delivered till date. The complainant visited the Ops and also written a letter dated 07.09.2015 to the OP No.2 to know the status of money orders but to no avail.  The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but despite that all fell on deaf ears.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service besides mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                          The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed joint reply and submitted that the post office is exempted from any liability of loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post and as per Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 no suit or other legal proceedings can be instituted against Govt. or any officer of the Post Office.  It is admitted that the complainant had booked two money orders of Rs.500/- each and Rs.50/- was charged as commission. It is further submitted that the money orders were transmitted to centre server on the same day of its booking for its payment.  The complainant had lodged a complaint on the web site of department and on enquiry it came to the notice that EMO No.038827150820001926 was erroneously paid to wrong addressee on 21.08.2015 and the same has been delivered to Smt.Rekha Goyal on 20.10.2015 after recovering the same from wrong addressee. It is further submitted that EMO No.038827150820001925 was not transmitted to the payment office from the center server due to some technical problem and after removing he technical problem same was paid to the addressee on 16.10.2015. There is no deficiency on the part of the Ops as the money orders have already been paid/delivered to the addressee. Prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the Ops have tendered affidavit and documents Annexure RA, Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had sent a token of love by sending money orders on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan to his sisters but the money orders have never been delivered till date despite lodging the complaint in writing and serving of legal notice upon the OPs. It has been further argued that due to the act and conduct the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment besides deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

5.                          On the other hand it has been argued due to technical fault and delivering of money order on wrong addressee the money orders could not be delivered in time but now money orders have already been delivered. It has been further argued that post office is exempted from any liability of loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post and as per Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 no suit or other legal proceedings can be instituted against Govt. or any officer of the Post Office.

6.                          The sole and only ground taken by the Ops is that as per Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act present complaint on account of non-payment of money orders is not maintainable.  In support of his contention  learned counsel for the Ops has relied upon case law titled as The Sub Post Master, Tirupur & Anr. Vs. V.Ramakrishana II (1993) 213 (NC) wherein it has been mentioned that Negligence –Section 14-Compensation-Registered letter-Complaint against delay in delivery of registered letter- Negligence not established on part of OP- Whether entitled for compensation. ? No. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Ops because Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Chief Post Master General & Others Vs. Tej Narian Mishra (Dr.) & Others 2015 (2) CLT 357  has held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g) & Indian Post Office Act, 1898 Section 48 Clause (c)- Post Office- Non-payment of the money order- Plea of OP that in view of the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act , the complaint on account of non-payment of the money order is not maintainable-  Held- Despite five repeated complaints post office does not bother to take a remedial action, such an act would atleast by an unreasonable or stubborn act on their part- Consequently such a case will not be saved under Clause (c) of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act- This was a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of the Post Authorities in rendering the services to the complainant, who had paid consideration to them as commission for delivering the money order to payee. It has been further held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g) & Indian Post Office Act, 1898 Section 48 Clause (c)- Post Office- Non-payment of the money order- Plea of OP that in view of the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act , the complaint on account of non-payment of the money order is not maintainable- Held This is a case where the money order was not at all delivered to the payee at any point of time before the complaint came to be filed.  Feeling aggrieved with the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint as the Ops did not deliver the money orders in time. It is admitted fact on behalf of the Ops that the money orders were delivered after filing of the present complaint, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the Ops are deficient in providing service to the complainant and as per verdict taken by Hon’ble National Commission in case law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant titled as Chief Post Master General & Others Vs. Tej Narian Mishra (Dr.) & Others 2015 (2) CLT 357 the Ops are not entitled for the exemption under Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

7.                          From the above, it is clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint deserves to be succeeded and accordingly the same is allowed. The Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.

8.                          Let, the order be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

05.01.2016       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER         MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

         

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT