BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 08^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

These complaints have been filed by one and the same complainants U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the same Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) and the issues involved in all the four complaints are one and the same.  Therefore, all the four complaints have been taken up together for disposal under this common order.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint No.2307/2013 are as under:

That on 09.05.2013 the complainant sent a electronic money order in a sum of Rs.258/- through OP to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Yellapur Sub Division.  The said money order was to reach the addressee within 3-4 days.  However, the same has been delivered on 23.05.2013 with a delay of 14-15 days.  As a result of which, the complainant has been put to inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and the said act also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.90,000/- inclusive of travelling expenses, litigation expenses, mental agony, loss and towards consumer welfare fund.

3. The OP in response to the notice issued appeared through its advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

The electronic money order booked by the complainant for Rs.258/- from BSK I Stage on 09.05.2013 addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Yellapura was electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office and on 10.05.2013 the eMO has reached Yellapura.  That on the day of receipt itself the eMO is issued for payment but as per the request of the payee the eMO was retained up to 22.05.2013.  Therefore, there is no any delay or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The brief averments made in the complaint No.2308/2013 are as under:

That on 09.05.2013 the complainant sent a sum of Rs.742/- to Taluka Watershed Development Officer, Batkal through eMO.  The said eMO was expected to reach the addressee within 3-4 days.  However, the same has been delivered to the addressee on 24.05.2013 with a delay of 15-16 days.  As a result of which, the complainant has suffered inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and the said conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.95,000/- inclusive of travelling expenses, litigation expenses, mental agony, loss and towards consumer welfare fund.

5. The OP in response to the notice issued, appeared through its advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

It is true that the complainant booked a eMO for Rs.742/- from BSK I Stage on 09.05.2013 addressed to the Taluk Watershed Development Officer, Watershed Department, Bhatkal and on the same day the eMO was electronically transmitted from the booking office.  That on 10.05.2013 the eMO has reached Bhatkal and on the day of receipt itself the eMO has been issued for payment but same was paid on 24.05.2013 due to insufficient address.  That there are three Watersheds situated at Jalanayana, Mankuli, Ragunath Road Bhatkal.  However, the complainant in his eMO application did not specify the correct address of the office to which it has to be delivered and delay is due to mistake on the part of the complainant and not on the part of OP.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6. The brief averments made in the complaint No.2309/2013 are as under:

That on 12.06.2013 the complainant sent eMO for Rs.134/- to Panchyath Development Officer, Janmanne, Sirsi Taluk, Uttara Kannada District through OP and the said eMO was to reach the addressee within 3-4 days.  However, the said eMO was delivered to the addressee on 03.07.2013 with a delay of 21-22 days.  As a result of which, the complainant has suffered inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and the said delay in delivering the eMO amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.85,000/- inclusive of travelling expenses, litigation expenses, mental agony, loss and towards consumer welfare fund.  

7. The OP in response to the notice issued, appeared through its advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

It is true that the complainant booked the eMO for Rs.134/- from BSK I Stage on 12.06.2013 addressed to Panchayat Abhivridhi Adikarigalu Gramapanchayat, Janmanne Aminalli.  The eMO was electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office.  That on 13.06.2013 the eMO was reached Neggu Post Office.  That the complainant has written pin code of Neggu instead of writing the correct pin code of Aminalli on 02.07.2013 and the same is paid at Janmanne on 03.07.2013.  That though the eMO was transmitted to Neggu on 13.06.2013 due to technical problem the eMO could not be redirected from Neggu to Aminalli.  That the delay in payment was due to the mistake of the complainant in not mentioning the correct pin code of the addressee and not due to any fault on the part of OP.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

8. The brief averments made in the complaint No.2310/2013 are as under:

That on 09.05.2013 the complainant sent a eMO for Rs.184/- to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Kumta Sub Division through OP and the same was to reach the addressee within 3-4 days.  However, the same has been delivered on 20.05.2013 with a delay of 11-12 days.  As a result, the complainant has been put to inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and the delay in delivery of the eMO also amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Therefore, the complainant prayed for an direction to the OP to pay him a compensation of Rs.65,000/- inclusive of travelling expenses, litigation expenses, mental agony, loss and towards consumer welfare fund.  

9. The OP in response to the notice issued, appeared through its advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

It is true that the complainant booked a eMO for Ra.184/- from BSK I Stage on 09.05.2013 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Kumta and the said eMO was electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office.  That on 10.05.2013 the eMO has reached Kumuta Head Office.  As the delivery jurisdiction comes under Herawatta Post Office, it was again redirected to Herawatta on 11.05.2013.  Since 12.05.2013 was Sunday, the eMO was taken print on 13.05.2013 at Herawatta and issued to delivery Postman.  Since 13.05.2013 was State Government holiday due to Basava Jayanthi, the same could not be delivered.  Thereafter, the same was issued on 14.05.2013 and on that day the concerned Postman returned the same with an shara stating that payee not available and intimated the concerned office.  That the addressee has collected the eMO on 20.05.2013 in response to the intimation served on 14.05.2013.  Therefore, there was no any delay on the part of the OP in delivering the eMO.  Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

10. The complainant filed his separate affidavit evidence in each of the four cases reiterating the allegations made in the complaints.  The OP also filed the affidavit evidence of one H.R Veerana Goud, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore in support of the averments made in all the four cases.  Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.

11. The points that arise for our determination in these cases are as under:

        12. Perused the allegations made in all the four complaints, averments made in the version filed by the OP, affidavit evidence, written arguments and the documents relied upon by both the parties.

13. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

14. There is no dispute regarding the eMO sent by the complainant in all these four complaints through OP to various Government functionaries.  There is a delay in delivery of the eMO to respective Government Offices.  It is contended by the complainant that in each of these four cases, the eMO was to reach the concerned addressee within 3-4 days as per the Postal manual.  But there is unnecessary delay of more than 10 days in each of the cases.  It is contended by the complainant that the OP without there being any valid reasons has delayed the delivery of the eMO to the addressee thereby causing hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to him.  The complainant further contended that the inordinate delay in delivering the said eMOs to the addressee amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, prayed for compensation as prayed for in each of the four complaints.

15. In complaint No.2307/2013 the OP averred that the eMO booked on 09.05.2013 by the complainant and addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Yellapura was electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office and the same has reached Yellapura on 10.05.2013.  It is further averred that on the day of receipt itself the eMO was issued for payment but as per the request of the payee, the eMO was retained up to 22.05.2013.  The OP has produced the copy of the letter addressed to the Post Master, Sub Post Office by Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Yellapura to substantiate that in pursuance of the said letter, the eMO was retained in the office till 23.05.2013.  Perused the said letter in which it has been mentioned that the complainant in this case had sought for certain information under RTI Act 2005 and Executive Engineer, Sirsi, was forwarded with the said application of the complainant and accordingly necessary information has been furnished to the complainant.  It is further mentioned that though the complainant was informed not to pay any fees for the information furnished, he sent the said sum of Rs.258/- through money order.  Since it was not mentioned in the money order as to which particular application the said amount pertains to the addressee delayed the receipt of the money order.

16. From the above said letter of Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Yellapura, it is quite clear that the addressee himself delayed the receipt of the money order for the reasons mentioned in the said letter.  Therefore, the OP cannot be blamed for the delay in delivering the money order to the addressee.  For the reasons mentioned stated above, we are of the opinion that the allegations of delay on the part of the OP is baseless and the OP cannot be held responsible for the said delay.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed in the complaint.

17. In complaint No.2308/2013 the complainant alleged that there is a delay of 15-16 days in delivering the money order sent by him on 09.05.2013 to Taluk Watershed Development Officer, Bhatkal Taluk.  The OP contended that the eMO was electronically transmitted to Bhatkal on the day of booking itself and the same has reached Bhatkal on 10.05.2013 and on the date of receipt itself the eMO was issued for payment.  The OP further contended that due to insufficient address the eMO could not be delivered on time.  It was brought to our notice that there are three watershed situated, one at Jalanayana another at Mankuli and third one at Ragunath Raod Bhatkal and since the complainant had not specified to which one of the three offices it was to be delivered, there was delay in ascertaining the correct addressee.  The complainant either in his affidavit evidence or in his written arguments did not dispute the reasons for the delay assigned by the OP.  Thus, it is apparent that since the complainant himself failed to give the correct address of the addressee, there was delay in delivering eMO to the concerned.  The OP has delivered the said eMO only after ascertaining the proper officer to whom the eMO was to be delivered.  Therefore, the OP cannot be held responsible for the delay in delivering the eMO in this case.  The complainant has to be blamed himself for the delay in delivery of the eMO in this case.  Therefore, we don’t find any truth in the allegations made against the OP for the delay in delivery of the eMO in this case.

18. In complaint No.2309/2013 the eMO for Rs.134/- was sent by complainant on 12.06.2013 addressed to Panchayath Abhivridhi Adikarigalu Gramapanchayat, Janmanne Aminalli has been electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office and the same has reached Neggu Post office on 13.06.2013.  The OP contended that the complainant has mentioned wrong pin code as a result the eMO has reached the Neggu Post Office instead of Aminalli.  Therefore, the same was redirected to Aminalli on 02.07.2013.  It is submitted on behalf of OP that due to technical problem, the eMO could not be redirected from Neggu to Aminalli immediately.  Therefore, there was delay in payment.  The OP has also produced the tracking report of the said eMO to substantiate their contention.  The complainant either in his affidavit evidence or in his written arguments did not dispute the said averments of the OP that the pin code of Aminalli was wrongly mentioned as a result the eMO was sent to Neggu post office instead of Aminalli.  Thus it is apparent that the delay in delivering the money order is due to wrong mentioning of the pin code by the complainant.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the OP cannot be held responsible for the delay in delivering the money order to the addressee.  We do not find any truth in the allegations of the complainant that the OP has deliberately delayed the delivery of the eMO.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this complaint.

19. In complaint No.2310/2013 it is contended by the complainant that the money order of Rs.184/- addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Kumta Sub Division was delivered with delay of 11-12 days.  The OP contended that the said money order booked on 09.05.2013 was electronically transmitted on the same day from the booking office and on 10.05.2013 the eMO reached Kumta Head Office.  It is further contended that since the delivery jurisdiction comes under Herawatta, it was redirected to Herawatta on 11.05.2013.  Since 12.05.2013 was Sunday, the eMO was taken print on 13.05.2013 at Herawatta and issued to the delivery Postman but on that day the Government Offices were closed due to Basava Jayanthi, therefore, the eMO could not be delivered.  It is further contended that again the same was issued on 14.05.2013 to the Postman and the Postman returned with remarks as “door locked intimation delivered”.  It is further averred that the addressee has collected the eMO on 20.05.2013 in response to the intimation served on 14.05.2013.   In his affidavit evidence or in the written arguments, the complainant did not dispute the reasons assigned by the OP for the delay in delivering the eMO.

20. It is apparent from the material placed on record and the tracking report of the eMO, the eMO has reached Kumta Post Office on 10.05.2013 but since the delivery jurisdiction comes under the Herawatta Post Office, the same has been redirected to Herawatta on 11.05.2013.  12.05.2013 was Sunday and 13.05.2013 was holiday due to Basava Jayanthi therefore, the eMO could not be delivered on the said dates.  When the said eMO was issued on 14.05.2013 to the Postman the Postman has returned with remarks as “door locked, intimation delivered”.  In response to the intimation, the addressee has collected the eMO on 20.05.2013.  Therefore, here again the OP cannot be blamed for the delay in delivering the eMO.  The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but for the reasons mentioned above.  Therefore, OP cannot be held liable for the said delay.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no truth in the allegations of the complainant that there is negligence on the part of the OP in performing their duties amounting to deficiency in service.

21. It was contended by the OP that in pursuance of clause.220 of Postal manual the OP cannot be held responsible for any delay if any in delivering the money order because of improper and incorrect address etc.  The said clause.220 reads as under:

220. Non-responsibility of Post Office.- The Post Office will not be responsible for  (a) the wrong payment of a money order by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, or (b) for the payment of a money order being refused or delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of an officer of the Post Office, or (c) for any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year the date of issue of the order.

22. In view of the provisions mentioned above, the OP cannot be held liable for delay in delivering the money order because of incorrect or incomplete information as to the name and address of the payee, if delayed on account of any accidental neglect, omissions or mistake by are on the part of an officer of the Post Office etc.  In one of the cases on hand, the delay is because the addressee requested to retain the money order till certain verification.  In another case the delay is because the complainant himself mentioned incorrect pin code and in another case incomplete and improper address of the payee.  Moreover the complainant in none of the complaints specifically mentioned as to what hardship or inconvenience was caused to him due to delay in delivery of the eMOs to the concerned Government functionaries.  The complainant has also not mentioned the kind/nature of loss he suffered due to the delayed delivery.

23. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in all these complaints.  The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, all the four complaints are liable to be dismissed.  The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.

24. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint Nos.2307/2013, 2308/2013, 2309/2013 & 2310/2013 filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.2307/2013 and a copy of it shall be placed in other connected files.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 08^th day of October 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.02.2014.

1. Sri.Om Hegde Oorathota,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.03.2014.

1. Sri.H.R Veerana Goud,

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.02.2014.

1. Sri.Om Hegde Oorathota,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.03.2014.

1. Sri.H.R Veerana Goud,

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.02.2014.

1. Sri.Om Hegde Oorathota,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.03.2014.

1. Sri.H.R Veerana Goud,

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.02.2014.

1. Sri.Om Hegde Oorathota,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.03.2014.

1. Sri.H.R Veerana Goud,

Documents produced by the Opposite Party:

MEMBER                             MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*