DATE OF FILING : 17-10-2011.
DATE OF S/R : 18-11-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 02-05-2012.
1. Leena Ahemed,
w/o. late Mahinduin Ahmed,
2. Subhojit Ahmed,
s/o. late Mahiuddin Ahmed,
3. Shalini Ahmed,
d/o. late Mohiuddin Ahmed,
working at 11, Mukhram Kanoria Road,
P.S. Golabari,
District – Howrah,--------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. Post Master,
Howrah Head Post Office,
Howrah – 711101.owrah – 711101 ----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, wherein the complainants have prayed for return of postal receipts or the money with refused endorsements and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and for costs.
2. The complainants as tenants in respect of one shop room at 11, Mukhram Kanoria Road, P.S. Golabari, District – Howrah, under Bal Krishna Shareff at a rental of Rs. 450/- per month used to send the rent to the landlord at 17, Banstala Lane, P.S. Posta, Kolkata, from the month of July,2009 onwards to survive as tenants as one Title Suit NO. 16 of 2000 before the Ld. 4th Court, Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ), Howrah, is pending against them. The money ( rent ) as sent through money order, was neither been tendered to the landlord nor returned back, eclipsing the right of tenancy from the point of view of law. All the correspondences with the postal authority yielded no result. The complainants are under tremendous mental stress as they are running risk of being evicted, from their tenancy.
3. The O.P., Post Master, Howrah Post Office, Howrah, by filing written version contended interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the postal authority ; that all the money orders were sent to the payee but were returned back with a remark ‘payee left’ and those were sent to the sender and again the same were returned back to the post office by the post man with further remark ‘sender not known’ or ‘sender left without address’. As per Department’s rules all the M.Os. are kept in safe custody and so there is no merit in this complaint.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the record it appears to us that Postal Department, O.P. raised frivolous dispute that the addressee does not reside in the said address and unnecessarily withheld the M.O. amount keeping the senders under tremendous risk and peril eclipsing their right of tenancy. The conduct of the Postal Authority in our estimation is just callous and irresponsible. The complainants were practically unable to avail protection of tenancy by depositing the rent before the Rent Controller as per statute. It is unfortunate that the entire Postal Authority of the concerned post offices are to blame only for the erring delivery man or post man.
6. The attempt on the part of the O.P. to take refuge under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act is just insane. This is because Section 6 only applies in cases of loss, mis- delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. Nor it is of wrong payment of money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information. Naturally Section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act cannot have any application.
7. In our precise view the Postal Authority cannot evade the liability and responsibility for withholding the M.O. amount and in not returning the same back to the sender on fragile excuse. In fact, deficiency in service is amply proved and the O.P. cannot have any escape from the rigours of law.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In result the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 79 of 2011 ( HDF 79 of 2011 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
The O.P. be directed to return the money sent through M.Os. on different dates with the endorsement of refusal to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The complainants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- from the o.p. for prolonged harassment and mental agony.
The o.p. to pay the same to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum.
The complainants are entitled to litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
