ORDER                                 Dated: 28-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 02-11-2015 and
alleged that on 21.09.2015 and 21.10.2015 ,  he sent money order for
Rs. 5250/- to Smt. Deepa , Block no. 9 , Dev Nagar, New Delhi but
till date he did  not received the receipt of the money order by the
addressee.  On enquiry, the  concerned postman behaved in totally rude
and irresponsible manner and replied that “ I don’t know, you write to
higher authorities”.  Hence  complainant   requested that OP be
directed to pay a claim of Rs. 50,000/-   in his favour   along with
miscellaneous and legal expenses.

2.     In reply , OP admitted that both the  emo  sent have already
been paid to its payee on 24.09.2015 and 23.10.2015 and a letter dated
19.01.2016 was delivered to the complainant in this regard . OP denied
rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed  that the
complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.      In support of his complaint complainant filed his own
affidavit along with documents.

4.     In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Ms. Disha pannu
(Senior Superintendent).

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have considered the arguments and considered the evidence
led by the parties and their written and oral arguments and perused
file.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a)Whether complainant is a consumer?

         (b)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(c ) Relief?

7.     In reply, OP admitted that the money order sent were  already
paid to the payee on 21.09.2015 and 21.10.2015 hence it is proved that
complainant sent money order to the payee through OP  hence he  is a
consumer.

8.     The allegation  of the complainant against OP regarding the
deficiency in service are based on the ground that he did not  receive
the  acknowledgement of money order paid to the payee and rude and
irresponsible behavior of the concerned postman, are vague because
complainant did not clarify the name of the postman and in what way
his behavior was rude and irresponsible. Merely the narration of words
“I don’t know you write to the higher authorities” cannot be treated
as  the rude and irresponsible behavior of the postman.  It is
pertinent to mention herein that as per the Post Office Guidelines
part I rule 223 :

“223. Payee’s Acknowledgment : The remitter of a money order receives
an acknowledgment of payment of the amount of the money order signed
by the payee or his authorized agent.  If  the acknowledgment is not
received   in a reasonable time, a certificate of payment signed by
the Postmaster of the office will be given on application.   However,
in the case of money orders issued in favour of Government or
District, Local or Municipal Boards, the acknowledgment in some cases
is retained by the payee who issues a departmental receipt to the
remitter direct.”

9.     Hence non-receipt of the acknowledgment cannot be treated as
deficiency in service on the part of OP.

10.                          Looking to the above facts and
circumstances the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in
service on the part of OP hence complaint is dismissed.   Both the
parties shall bear their own cost.

11.                         Copy of the order be made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ……….