PRESENT:    SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI,

PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SMT. SARITRI PATTNAIK,

MEMBER (W)

Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Presiding Member:

Brief fact of the complaint filed by the complainant:-

1. The complaint has filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 following deficiency of services rendered by the Opposite Parties (herein offer called O.Ps).

            2. To get the information under RTI Act as per direction of the Joint Director (Admn.) PIO, NHM Odisha vide letter No.: OSH & FWS/7602, file No 01/2020/June (07) dated 19.08.2020 the complainant has intended to pay the amount of Rs.10/- through M.O. of India Post. Accordingly the complainant has booked eM.O. for Rs.10/- at O.P.No.1 to pay to the payee. The Public Information Officer, National Health Mission, Odisha, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Odisha, SIHFW, Annex Building, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751012 on 25.08.2020. The O.P.No.1 has issued postal receipt of such booking vide PNR No.086927983439128010 dated 25.08.2020 at 13.55. The complainant came to know about the nonpayment of eMO Rs.10/- to the above addressee through postal tracking on 6^th September 2020. After minutely checking of reason for non delivery of the eMO, it comes to knowledge of the complainant that, the O.P.No1 has entered the wrong pin code i.e. 751020 instead of 751012.  Meanwhile, the complainant reported the C.P.M.G. through tweeter. And on 14^th September 2020, the eMO in question had returned to the Khandagiri SO due to insufficient address.  In the result, as per the Form B of PIO dated 19.08.2020 the amount has not been paid to the payee within stipulated period and complainant has not able to received the information from the payee for the purpose for which the amount was sent through eMO and sought the information through RTI Application by spending of huge time and finance during the pandemic Covid-19. For the above deficiencies in services of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed this complaint and sought following relief:-

1. Compensated to the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,00.000/- for the mental trauma and physical pain caused in due course of time and
2. Litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded suitably.  
3. Any other orders as the Hon’ble Forum may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances in favour of the complainant be passed.

3. Admitting the complaint, the Commission issued notices to the O.Ps. Duly acknowledging the notices, the O.Ps have appeared through their representative and filed their written version. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Aska Division, Aska-761110 has represented for O.P.No.1 & 2 in the present case. In their written version, the Ops have narrated the following version objecting this complaint of the complainant:- the O.Ps admitted that the eMoney Order was booked on 25.08.2020 at Seragada (Ganjam) Sub-Post office under the Aska Postal Division. 

4. The O.Ps while narrating the history of the case admitted that they have received Rs.1/- (Rupees one only) towards commission for the eM.O. PNR No.086927983439128010. Due to over busy at the time of booking of eM.O the Booking Assistant wrongly entered the Pin code of the eMO as 751020 instead of the correct pin code 751012. In the result, the eMO reached to Aerodrum Post Office whose pin code No. 751020.  Due to net work issue, the Sub Post Master of Aerodrum Post Office print the eMO and sent it to Khandagiri sub Post office with pin code: 751030 on 10.09.2020. On 12.09.2020 the Khandagiri Sub-postmaster confirmed that the payee of the eM.O did not belong to the delivery jurisdiction of his office and failed to trace out the exact location where the payee’s office and its post office. The eMO was returned to the remitter to his address on 14.09.2020 and the Medical College SO, Berhampur with pin code: 760004 paid the amount on 15.09.2020 to the payee.

5. The O.Ps further clarifies their stands as follows in written version that, the O.Ps have shifted their official responsible upon the complainant by stating specifically that, “the complainant …….xxxx…….being sufficiently educated and responsible citizen of the republic of India should examine the correctness of the entries in the receipt before leaving the counter of the PO or traced out the unintentional mistake of Booking Assistant could have been detected at the inception and the same could have been correctly directed. But the complainant treated the receipt as an acknowledgement. Further the O.Ps have colonized the mistake done very simple way. In their written version stated that, it was “To errirs human” made if a kind of excuse.

6. To deferred their act, the O.Ps have relied upon the Section 48(c) of the India Post office Act, 1898 and declared before oath commissioner the Booking Assistant as their officer as per the said Act, 1898.

7. Heard to the complainant in person and Ld. Representative of the O.Ps. Perused and verified the documents, complaint etc. available in the case record. The complainant has filed his affidavit for chief and the written argument. Simultaneously the Ops have filed their evidence on affidavit along with certain reliable documents but did not file any written arguments.

8. On perusal of the complaint, evidence on affidavit and written argument along with documents and citation filed by the complainant is related to deficiency in services of the Ops. The complainant has submitted the remitters copy in the Commission dated 25.08.2020 vide P.N.R. No.: 086927983439128010 that the said copy disclosed the pin code of payee is 751012 which is very clear and legible whereas the O.P No.1 has entered the pin code of payee as 751020. Further the complainant submitted that the counter P.A has intentionally entered the said wrong pin code while booking the eMO for Rs.10/- on 25.08.2020 at 13.55 for which said eMO has not been delivered to the payee as mentioned in eMO annexure remitters copy. The complainant further submitted that in the result the purpose for which said eMO has booked did not serve the purpose. Hence he faced deficient in services from the O.Ps. The O.Ps objecting the complaint submitted in shape of affidavit that due to over busy at that time wrongly entered by the Booking Assistant. It is also submitted by the O.Ps that “in the present case, the eMO was booked at 13.55 hours i.e. only minutes before closing hours of the counter and after a day work at counter, the Booking Assistant being human being is bound to have been physically and mentally exhausted at the time of booking”. Further the O.Ps submitted attested documents in Annexure R/2 which discloses that only one eMO items booking was made on 25.08.2020 i.e. on the date of incident. So it speaks about that the booking assistant was not busy on the said date. The O.Ps failed to substantiate the task carried out by the Booking Assistant on the said day. The O.Ps further relied upon the Section 48(i) of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 wherein it clearly speaks that no suit or other legal proceeding shall be initiated 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 posts office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the traced or willful act or default of such officer”. In the instant case, the O.Ps admitted that, the Booking Assistant of O.P.No.1 has done all wrongs.

9. To discard the O.Ps evidence, the complainant has filed a detailed report of Mass (All)  dated 27.9.2021 period from date 25.8.2020 to 25.08.2020 of Seragada S.O. Department of Post which discloses the total number of transactions done on said day was 3 only. Further the complainant has submitted that the said Booking Assistant has booked another eMO on the same day after booking of eMO of the complainant. The complainant has submitted another report on working hours of business of Sheragada sub-Post Office Department of Posts, India which discloses the working hours for imo/eMO and MO issued/paid/MMTS on next days from 9.30A.M. to 14.30 P.M. and on Saturday it is from 9.30A.M. to 12.30P.M which was supplied by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Aska Division, Aska-761110 dated 18.9.2017. The complainant corroborating the said documents dated 18.9.2017 submitted that he has booked the eM.O. on 25.8.2020 at 13.55 P.M. which was not last minute of the booking of the eMO for the Sheragada S.O. And the contention of O.Ps specifically that, “in the instant case, the eMO was booked at 13.55 hours i.e. only minutes before closing hours of the counter was not time and correct in view of the notice of hours of business of Sheragada sub-Post Office (O.P.No.1). Further the booking assistant has deliberately harassing the present complainant when he approached the said S.O. and for which the complainant has corroborated another report of consignment No. R08243047451N wherein the complainant has booked a registered letter on 25.6.2020 at 13:58:37 to the delivery location Rayagvada (K) at Sheragada S.O. but while entering the pin code of destination the Booking Assistant of the said S.O. has entered as 751001 instead of 765001. So far business concerned at the posts office the correct pin code is required to enter while booking and to provide actual and defect free services to its consumer. The Booking Assistant of Sheragada S.O. has deliberately and willfully made wrong entries of the pin code of booked consignment of the complainant within a short span of two months only. The very act of the said booking assistant speaks volumes as submitted by the complainant. And whatever submissions made by the O.Ps are totally wrong and misleading the respected Commission. Rather the authorized person of the O.Ps themselves have tried to suppress the above material fact before the Commission and simultaneously encouraged said Booking Assistant to continue the same and similar type of services to the consumers of the Sheragada S.O. Department of Post. The very act of O.Ps and Authorized Representative i.e. the Superintendent of Post offices Aska Division, Aska are negligent and sought for explanation for the matter to the O.P.No.1 by the Superintendent of post offices, Aska Division could not resolve the issues in the case. So the Booking Assistant including other O.Ps and the Superintendent of post offices, Aska Division are very negligent to execute their duties as the Govt. of India made guidelines to provide appropriate services to the citizens of India. Since the complainant has a genuine complaint.

10. To proof the stands, the complainant relied upon the citation of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Superintendent of Post Office vs. Dr. Sasadhar Panda reported in Indian Kanoon – it is quite evident that the postal department has received Rs.50/- for transmission of EMO of Rs.1000/- from respondent in order to reach its destination within shortest possible time. But the appellant took two months time to send it in its destination. It certainly causes unnecessary delay causing tremendous mental agony and anguish of the respondent. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1948 being pari material with Sec.48(c) of the said Act, particularly when the appellant has failed to brought on record that there has no been any willful actor default on the part of an yof its officers, we have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in holding that the post office was liable for this act of negligence … xxx…”.

The complainant relied upon a citation to prove his case held in the Superintendent of Post Office vs. Dr. Sasadhar Panda reported in Indian Kanoon reported in Indian Kanoon –

11. On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law and the documentary evidences in details available in the record that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. The complainant has clearly mentioned the Pin code 751012 of the payee’s address in eMO Form supplied by the Sheragada Post Office i.e., Opposite Party no.1 but having no such rush and over busy in the post office on 25.08.2020 as it reveals in Annexure R/2 filed by the Ops. The Booking Assistant of the opposite party no.1 has entered the Pin Code as 751020 willfully and intentionally which attributes about the negligence. The complainant is also submitted about the negligence made by the said Booking Assistant in another booking of parcel from same post office who typed the pin code of the address as 751001 instead of 765001 as revealed under Annexure R/3 filed by the Complainant along with Written Argument.

12. In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on part of Ops and therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the Complainant, he needs to be compensated. In this connection, we would like to cite the authority of Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, jaipur vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr reported in 1986-99, Consumer 1456 (NS) where it was observed as follows:

“Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term; it signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus the provision of section 14(1)(d) are attracted if the person form who damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages, injury, if any, must flow from negligence.”

13. To discredit the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties relied upon the Sec.48 of the India Post Office Act, 1898 i.e., ‘Exemption from liability in respect of money orders’. It is applicable only in the case when any post office made wrong payments. But it does not contemplate that remitter cannot sue any post office if the officials of the post office entered the wrong pin code while booking the money order.  The opposite parties admitted that, the booking assistant has entered the wrong pin code while booking the eMO on 25.08.2020. In modern digitalized era, the officials of the post office should be precision and efficient while executing their public duties. Hence the Act, 1898 is not at all applicable in the instant case.

14. So, in the instant case the Op no.1 negligently acted and caused a legal injury to the complainant so he needs to compensate. As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by him due to negligence of the Ops and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation in the fact and circumstances of the case. However, he has not corroborated his claim by filling any cogent documentary evidence that his actual loss was Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus it appears to be hypothetical claim towards compensation. In this case, the complainant did not get the information under RTI Act from the appropriate authority even he transferred the required amount through eMO taking pain during pandemic Covid-19 in the interest of the public at large having good faith upon the Ops. The purpose of transferring of the amount through eMO was defeated in the instant case. Hence, the Op no.1 is liable to pay compensation for its arbitrary and illegal actions and negligence caused to the complainant.

15. In the light of the above discussion, we allow the case of the complainant against opposite party no.1 since liable for his negligence for wrong entry of the PIN code. Considering the present fact and circumstances of the case, we feel that Rs.500/- would be just and proper towards compensation. The complainant was harassed by the Op no.1 as well as suffered from mental agony. With regard to the cost of litigation, we allow a moderate amount of Rs.500/- to meet his legal expenses, since he was forced to file this consumer complaint-in-person due to negligence and indifferent attitude of Op No.1. However, while making payment of compensation and cost to the complainant by the Ops Chief Post Master General (CPMG) is at liberty to fix the accountability on erring officials who was responsible for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The India Post shall pay first the awarded amount to the complainant and the same may be recovered from salary of such erring officer.

16. In the result, the case of the complainant is allowed against OP no.1 and dismissed against OP no.2. The OP no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards compensation for negligence, arbitrary and illegal actions causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation. The above order is to be complied by the OP no.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount to be recovered from the OP no.1 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filling of the case till actual realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

PRONOUNCED ON: 10.04.2023.