KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 19/2010

JUDGMENT DATED 30.1.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                        : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.  The Director of Postal Services,                          : APPELLANTS

     Office of the Chief PMG,

     Kerala Circle,

     Thiruvananthapuram – 695 036.

2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

     Thiruvananthpauram Sousth Division,

     Thiruvananthpauram – 695 0036.

( By  Sri.R.P.Sandeep, Authorised representative)

                vs.

Sri.K.Ramachandran, Sathi Nivas,                     : RESPONDENT

TC 22/426(2) Konchiravila,

Manacaud.P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.16/07 in the file of Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation and 1000/- as cost with interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within  one month.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had sent the money order of Rs.1000/- to his son Sreejesh.S.R Chandran who is working at Rajkot on 9.6.06 to meet his treatment expenses.  He was affected by infective hepatitis and malaria.  As the Money order was not received he had sold his gold chain at a reduced rate for returning to Thiruvananthapuram.  On 13.10.06 he was admitted at PRS hospital.  After treatment he rejoined at Rajkot.  The  money order was received only on 28.10.06 ie, after a lapse of 53 days.  The complainant had complained to the postal authorities on 12.9.06 and 15.9.06.

          3. The case of the opposite parties is that on receipt of complaint from the complainant  enquiries was made at  SPM,Veraval the post office at Rajkot and on 22.9.06 it was informed that the  money order was not received at the above post office and a duplicate money order was issued on 9.10.06.  It is contended that  as per Section 48(C) of the Post Offices Act the opposite parties have got absolute immunity.

          4. The evidence  adduced  consisted the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P12 and D1 to D8.

          5. We find that it is admitted that the money order sent on 6.9.06 was delivered  only on 28.10.06.  The delay is of more than 50 days.  The case of the complainant is that his son was suffering from hepatitis and malaria is not disputed.   There is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW1 that his son had to  make a distress sale of his gold chain.  The reason for the non receipt of the money order at the destination post office is not explained.  No attempt has been made to fix responsibility for the lapse.  In such circumstances we find that Section 48 (C ) cannot be resorted to.  Willful default in such a situation is a matter of inference. The Forum has only ordered nominal compensation.

          6. In the circumstance we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          7. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU              : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                     : MEMBER

ps