DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.107/04.08.2008 Decided on : 21.01.2009 Ram Variksh Chauhan S/o Sh. Mahavir, C/o Sonu General Store, Water Works Road, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Post Master, Sub Post Office, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.Superintendent, Head Post Office , Bathinda Range, Bathinda ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.B.N.Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Ram Variksh Chauhan, son of Sh. Mahavir, C/o Sonu General Store, Water Works Road, Tehsil and District Mansa, against the Post Master, Sub Post Office, Mansa and the Superintendent, Head Post Office, Bathinda Range, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may briefly be described, as under:- 2. That the complainant is a resident of State of Uttar Pradesh, but he is earning his livelihood, by laying floor of marble, at Mansa, for a period of last 30 years. He sends money, earned by him, to the members of Contd........2 : 2 : his family, in his native village Dulampur, Post Office Chhapra Mugrabi, District Sant Kabir Nagar, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, through money orders. On 24.5.2008, the complainant sent money order, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, in the name of his son, Mithu Lal, from Sub Post Office, at Mansa i.e. Dak Ghar Branch, against receipt No.224. In the ordinary course, the money order might have been received by the son of the complainant, within a period of one week, but it has not been received, so far, at the destination. After waiting for some time, the complainant informed the opposite parties, about the non-delivery, of the money order to his son, but they have failed, to pay any heed. The family members of the complainant are facing starvation, as such, he has been subjected to physical and mental agony. Therefore, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. At the end, a prayer, has been made, that direction be given, to the opposite parties, to refund the amount of Rs.2,000/-, and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that it is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant, has no locus standi, to file the present complaint; that Government and postal officials cannot be burdened with any liability for loss, mis delivery, delay or damage of any postal article, unless they had done such an act fraudulently, by wilful act or default, as envisaged in Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. It is submitted that, on receipt of the complaint, from the complainant, for non delivery of the money order, to his son, information was loaded, on the website, for information of concerned postal authorities, and duplicate money order, was issued, on 6.8.2008, by the Post Office, Mansa, on the basis of which payment, has been made, on 12.8.2008, as such, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is not a consumer, but he has filed the complaint, to harass the officials of the Post Office, as such, the same is liable to be Contd........3 : 3 : dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted, that the complainant, had sent money, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, through money order No.224, on 24.5.2008, at the address, of his native village, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as mentioned in the complaint. It is reiterated that the payment of the amount, has been made, on 12.8.2008, to the son of the complainant, on the basis of duplicate money order, dated 6.8.2008. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant, tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-5, and photo copies of documents Ext.C-1 to C-4, and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel, for the opposite parties tendered, in evidence affidavit of Sh.Jiwan Kumar, Sub Post Master, Main Dak Ghar, Mansa Ext.R-1 and closed, their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. As per the admitted facts, the complainant, sent a sum of Rs.2,000/-, through money order No.224, on 24.5.2008, from Sub Post Office, Mansa, and opposite parties issued him receipt. As per averments made, in the written version, by the opposite parties, duplicate money order, was issued, in the name of the complainant by Sub Post Master on 6.8.2008 and payment the amount was made to his son on 12.8.2008. 7. These facts are not denied by the learned counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments, nor any rejoinder, has been filed, on his behalf, to controvert the same. However, the complainant, has produced on record, copy of complaint dated 25.6.2008, Ext.C-1, made by him, to the Sub Post Master, Mansa, showing his concern, about the non delivery of the money, sent through money order, to his son. He has further produced on record, copy of the notice dated 14.7.2008, Ext.C-2, Contd........4 : 4 : served upon the opposite parties and postal receipts Ext.C-3 and C-4 showing that money order was sent to the Post Office, Mansa. The opposite parties, have admitted, that on the basis of the intimation conveyed by the complainant, in writing, they had loaded the requisite information, on the website, for information of concerned postal authorities, but it is not the plea of the opposite parties, that they initiated any other action for making early payment of the amount of the money order, to the son of the complainant. There is delay of more than three months, in payment of amount of money order, sent by the complainant, to his son, which is not explained by the opposite parties. 8. In the light of the above, we have come to the conclusion that complainant is consumer, within its definition given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint does not become infructuous, even if, payment has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of duplicate money order after filing of the complaint on 4.8.2008. In this regard, reference may be made to 2004(2) CPC 491 General Manager Telecom, BSNL & Ors. versus Lt.Col.M.S.Pandher, wherein excess amount charged illegally from the complainant was adjusted in subsequent bills, but after filing of the complaint. It was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, that such pleas, cannot be allowed, by the opposite parties and order passed, by the District Forum directing the opposite parties, to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, for deficiency in service, was upheld. 9. At this stage learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, has submitted that as per provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, no liability can be fastened upon Government or postal authorities in case there is loss, mis delivery, delay or damage of any postal article in the course of transit by post unless such an act has been done fraudulently, by wilful act or default. Learned Contd........5 : 5 : counsel has argued that the complainant has neither alleged nor proved any fraud, wilful act or default on the part of the officials of the opposite parties, as such, he is not entitled to payment of any amount on account of compensation due to delay in making payment of the amount of money order. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per provisions of Section 48(c) of the above Act, no suit or other legal proceeding can be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post office in respect of the payment of any 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 for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. B.N.Goel, Advocate, has submitted that money order cannot be termed as a postal article, because the amount, is received by the Post Office, from a person, for delivering the same, for consideration, with promise to pay the same to the addressee, as such, provisions of Section 6 of the above said Act, are not attracted to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel has submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, is a social legislation, which has been enacted, by the legislature particularly to compensate the victims in case of defect in goods and deficiency in services. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the complainant and his family members has suffered due to delay of delivery of amount of money order to his son, due to lapse on the part of the opposite parties, therefore, complainant deserves to be compensated for mental and physical harassment suffered by him. 11. As per our opinion, the money order cannot be termed as postal article within the scope of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, because money is received by the post office for consideration with promise to make payment to the addressee within reasonable time. As such, opposite parties cannot escape liability under the said provisions and complainant cannot be non suited, on that ground. However, Section 48 Contd........6 : 6 : ( c )of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, provides that no suit or other legal proceedings can be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post office, in respect of the payment of any 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 for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer. In the instant case, the complainant has not alleged that delay in delivery of the amount of money order, has taken place, due to any fraud, wilful act or default, on the part of the postal authorities. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that in view of the bar imposed by Section 48( c ) of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, complaint in District Consumer Forum, for delay, in payment of amount of money order, is not maintainable and for the aforesaid reasons, we have no option, but to dismiss the complaint. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, complaint is hereby dismissed on the ground of maintainability and parties are left to bear their own costs. 13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 21.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
