District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/50/2022
(Date of Filing:-29.03.2022)
Sri Prasanta Basu Ray
Deziray Complex, Barabazar, Chandannagar,
Hooghly-712136 …………Complainant
- Post Master, Nongthymmai SO Mylliem/East Khasi Hills
Shillong HQ Meghalaya, Pin:-793014
- Senior Superintendent, Post Offices, South Hooghly Division
Serampore, Hooghly-712201
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
-
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
The instant complaint case emanates from the grievances of the petitioner arising out of the service extended by Postal Authority of Meghalaya and South Hooghly Division, Serampore, Hooghly, in the matter of delivering the amount of an electronic money order to the concerned recipient.
The facts of the case in diminutive form are as follows.
The complainant, on receipt of the news of expiry of his brother in law (Elder sister’s husband) in Shillong, Meghalaya sent an electronic money order of Rs.1000/- on 13.04.2020 which was supposed to be delivered on 15.04.2020. However the same was delivered on 20.05.2020 reportedly after intervention of higher postal authority.
Allegedly the OP 1 postal authority of Meghalaya was directed to deliver the EMO on 20.04.2020 but the instruction was not complied with.
The Complainant explains that as he could not attend the post expiry rituals, he sent an EMO of Rs.1000/- to his sister for the said rituals.
The Complainant had to pay Rs.50/- for sending the EMO, to Chandannagar P.O. which is under the control of OP 2.
The late delivery of the EMO allegedly caused mental agony, harassment for the Complainant and the Complainant had to face also adverse criticism from his family members. Thus religious sentiment of the Complainant was hurt.
All these developments compelled the Complainant to approach to this Commission for redressal of his grievances.
Considering the treatment extended by the OP as deficiency of service, the complainant submits a prayer before this Commission to impose direction upon the OP to award a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Besides, he also urges upon the Commission to warn and admonish both the OPs accordingly so that no such deficiency of service recurs in future.
The Complainant along with his complaint petition annexes copies of communications made with higher postal authorities, instructions issued by the said authorities, orders passed by the concerned authorities in CC case No. CC/111/2015 and Appeal case No. A/1325/2017.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument filed by the Complainant are almost replicas of the Complaint petition.
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the postal authority in the instant case was a service provider and the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
The complainant and OP 2 are resident/having office within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
The issues related to the questions whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.
Defence case
The OP has contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument. There were also exchanges of interrogatories and replies between the Complainant side and the OP side.
In the written version the OP postal authority denies all the allegations leveled against them.
In the written versions it is argued that the EMO as per tracking report was received by the OP 1 on 20.05.2020 and the EMO was delivered on the same date.
It is vehemently refuted that there were repeated non-compliance of the directives of the higher authorities and the EMO was delivered on 20.05.20 to the addressee only after the intervention of the Director/CEPT/Mysore/India Post.
Synchronously, OP postal authority rebutting the propositions of the complainant claims that it is not a religious custom but a practice to attend the post expiry rituals. OP further asserts that it is not a religious custom to send some amount to the deceased’s family to arrange smooth funeral in case of inability to attend the ‘Sradh Ceremony’ personally.
So far as the cases referred by the Complainant are concerned, OP postal authority claims that each case has to be decided on its merit and advantage cannot be taken citing certain precedents.
The OP Postal Authority clarifies that the EMO was booked on 13.04.2020 during the nationwide lockdown due to the pandemic. The said EMO is reported to have been transmitted on the date of booking to Data Centre of CEPT, Mysore. But due to certain unintentional technical problem the data was not received by the payment office in time.
It is further asserted that the EMO booked on 13.04.2020 was transmitted electronically to data server as per normal procedure and OP 1 had no role except delivering the EMO as soon as it reached the office of OP 1. OP 1 claims to have received the EMO on 20.05.20 and to have delivered the EMO on the same day.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument submitted by the OPs are almost repetitions of the content of the written version.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused.
The Complainant received the news of the sad demise of his brother-in-law at Shillong, Meghalaya on 11.04.2020. The Electronic Money Order was booked on 13.04.2020 with a purpose to extend some financial help to his sister. For booking of the EMO the Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.50/-.
Now, in reply to the question raised by the Complainant that what is the time prescribed by India Post to deliver an EMO to the addressee, the OP Postal Authority replied that one day would require to deliver an EMO if both the booking and payment office run through CSI module. However OP claims that during the material period the concerned postal authority at Meghalaya end was not rolled out under CSI.
The OP postal authority in their representations assigned the reason for delayed delivery of the EMO to some ‘unintentional technical problem’. However the unintentional technical problem is not exhaustively clarified by the OPs. Thus it cannot be determined that to what extent the technical problem was unintentional.
However, this particular case cannot be compared with the CC case and appeal case as mentioned by the Complainant. So far as the period of occurrence of the instant case is concerned it should be kept in mind that during the material point of time the nation, human life, daily activities in almost all spheres of life came to a standstill due to the lockdown arising out of the pandemic.
For fair adjudication of the case this aspect cannot be disregarded.
Now, on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and even without making any comment on the religious sentiment of the Complainant and the counter arguments of the OPs, the Commission is of the considered opinion that by taking as many as thirty seven days for delivering an EMO, the Postal Authority showed conspicuous deficiency of service causing mental agony and harassment for the Complainant.
However it transpires that OP 1 delivered the EMO as soon as it was received by them.
Hence it is
ORDERED
that the complainant case no.50/2022 be and the same succeeds on contest but in part.
The opposite party 2 i.e. the Senior Superintendent of post offices, South Hooghly Division on behalf of the Postal Authority in general, is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and further Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.
OP is directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order, the opposite party will pay cost of Rs.2,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgment/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
