BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

C.C NO-09/2018

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).

Pramod Kumar Chhuria, aged about 52 years,

S/O- Late Ramsingh Chhuria,

Occupation-Advocate,

R/O- Kuchinda,P.O/P.S-Kuchinda,Dist-Sambalpur.                             …..Complainant

Vrs.

Post Master,

District Head Post Office,Sambalpur,

At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Sambalpur.                                                                     …….O.P

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant:-  Sri S. Swain, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P          :-         Sri T.K.Perai(Authorised Person of the O.P).

DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.02.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-       Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dtd 27.08.2017 the Complainant that on dtd.03.01.2018  the Complainant had sent Rs.2,000/- through e- Money Order vide PNR No- 090433180103032691 to his ailing mother-in-law  for the purpose of purchasing medicines as she consuming medicines regularly. He has also said the required postal charges of Rs.100/- for the said money order. As the said Money Order did not reach the payee on dtd.11.01.2018 he made contact with the O.P but the O.P turned deaf ear and did not respond. Thereafter on dtd.12.01.2018 the Complainant again sent an e-mail to the O.P but this time he responded through g-mail and advised to verify the same on indiapost website. For the above said act of the O.P the Complainant has sustained financial loos, undergone mental pain and agony and his mother-in-law could not purchase medicine in proper time for which her health condition begin to detoriate time to time for which the Complainant sought certain relief from this Commission.

The documents attached herewith the complaint petition are

1. e-Money Order receipt vide PNR No-090433180103032691,
2. e-mail copy of the Complainant to the O.P,
3. g-mail reminder to the O.P,
4. g-mail reply from the O.P.

According to the O.P the eMO on dtd.03.01.2018 vide 090433180103032691 was booked and transmitted to the payment office on the same day which was confirmed from the report received from the Sr. Superintendent Office, Cuttack city Division. But due to reorganisation of Division and implementation of Core System Integration (CSI) the eMO was not received at Kishorenagar SO. Thereafter the matter was referred to TCS who is in charge of CSI related matters. After the issue was solved on dtd.24.05.2018 the postman of Kishorenager had attempted to deliver the eMO but the payee refused to receive the same so the eMo was returned to the remitter on dtd.24.05.2018 by the Sub-Post Master, Kishorenagar SO. Also he submitted that as the Department of Post is running in between a transition period due to different type of modernization process in technologies for the quick and better services  to the member of public for which the delay was caused which was not intentional. The O.P taken the plea of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act-1898, the department is exempted from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the postal article in course of transmission by post. Hence the O.P is not liable for the above delay and he shall not be penalised.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has sent e-Money Order through the O.P and paid the service charges of Rs.100/-. The O.P has delayed 4 months to deliver the Money Order to the payee stating the reason of delay that  caused during transition period due to different type of modernization process in technologies they could not do the needful in time for which the payee suffered pecuniary loss which amount to gross deficiency in services. Again the O.P has taken the plea that the postal department and its officers were exempted from any liability for the loss, mis-delivery or delay/ damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government and no officer shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage unless the same was caused fraudulently or by willful act or default according to Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. So far as right of a consumer to be compensated due to deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the service provider, it is an independent and additional remedy as contemplated by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is as under:-"The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force". Any statute providing immunity as to the liability of service provider does not come in the way of right of consumer to the compensated in terms in section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Where by Consumer Forum after satisfying about the deficiency in service may order to pay such an amount as compensation for any loss or injury including mental agony, harassment.  Thus, we hold that Section-6 is not providing a windscreen to the postal authorities to justify all acts of negligence, remissness, inaction etc., on their part in discharge of their official duties.

Again from the act and conduct of the opposite parties it is fully established there is some dishonest intention on the part of the opposite parties because there is no evidence on behalf of the opposite parties to show reason for the delay in delivering the money orders at the destination. Even in the written reply the opposite parties have not disclosed the reason for the delay in delivery of the money orders, rather, they have simply stated that due to modernization process, the money orders were delivered at the destination on 24.05.2018 . The opposite party has failed to prove the reality with respect to their inadvertent act for late delivery of the money orders. It is not the case of the opposite party that he has thoroughly enquired the matter to know the reason for non-delivery of the money orders at the destination in time. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Post Office, Postal Department vs Umakant” decided on 18 January, 2011by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hariyana. Hence we order as under:-

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed. The OP is directed to pay an amount of          Rs.8,000/-(Eight Thousand) by way of compensation to the Complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss and agony and Rs. 2,000/-(Two Thousand) as litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the OP to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 03.02.2018 till its realisation."

Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 24^th day of February 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                            

-Sd/-                                                                                                   -Sd/-

MEMBER(W)                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

                                                                                  -Sd/-            

                                                                               PRESIDENT