Vijay Rishi complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 5250/- alongwith interest and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant belongs to Bihar and some years ago come to Punjab and working as farm laborer. He had sent Rs.5000/- to his brother-in-law Kaila Rishidev at village Colony Basti P.O. Phutani Hatia Tehsil and District Purnia (Bihar) vide money order dated 7/1/2006. He had paid Rs.5250/- to the opposite party No. 1 who had deposited the same with the opposite party No. 2. After about three/four months from the date of money order the complainant had to go his said brother-in-law for treatment and where the complainant came to know that the amount of the above mentioned money order was never given to the addressee Kaila Rishidev. The complainant returned to village Ghumiara in March 2007 and informed the opposite party No. 1 about non delivery of the money order amount to the addressee who advised him to approach the opposite party No. 2. Then he informed the opposite party No. 2 next day and submitted written complaint. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant to inquire about the matter and told to the complainant after a week. Since then the complainant approached the opposite party at least 10 times but each time the opposite party No. 2 put off the complainant on one pretext or the other and then started to behave rudely. In fact the employees of the opposite parties have fraudulently misappropriated the amount of the money order and have neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. The complainant face inconvenience, harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and above amount of the money order. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25-5-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. B.S.Gill Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not remitter of the money order and he is no bonafide customer of the Department of Posts. The money order was booked by BO Moran Wali under receipt No. 29 dated 6/1/2006 further booked at Faridkot MO-No. 5826 dated 7/1/2006 for Rs.5000/- which was remitted by Sh. Bohin Rishidev C/o Teja Singh Village Ghumiara Post Moran Wali District Faridkot. So the complainant is neither remitter nor payee. Moreover the Post Master Faridkot has not received any complaint from the remitter or payee regarding non payment of the said money order. The complainant has not mentioned any money order number in the complaint. The complaint is time barred as such the complaint should be lodged within 1 years from the date of booking of money order. So the complaint is not maintainable. On merits the complainant has sent no money to Sh. Kaila Rishidev at village Colony Basti Post Office Bhutani Hatia Tehsil and District Purnea (Bihar) on dated 7/1/2006 from Faridkot Head Post Office. If the money order was not paid remitter should submit a complaint to Post Master Faridkot but he had submitted no complaint. The complainant is not a customer of the department of Post so he can file a complaint in the Hon'ble Forum. From inquiry after filing of this complaint Customer Care Centre Purnea has reported that “ No such village and post Office under Jalalgarh Sub Post Office”. Actually the village Phutani Hatia is under Guru Bazar Post Office, District Katihar (Bihar) and duplicate money order has been sent to SPM Guru Bazar vide registered letter No. 1723 dated 18/6/2007 by Post Master, Faridkot for making payment to Sh. Kaila Rishidev Village Colony Basti Post Phutani Hatia Via Guru Bazar Tehsil and District Purnea (Bihar). In the light of Section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, the post office is exempted from all liabilities regarding delay, loss or damage of any postal article during the course of its transmission. Hence the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sher Singh Superintendent of Post Office, Faridkot Ex.R-1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the money order of the complainant was not delivered by the opposite parties at the given address. So the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount of the money order and compensation for harassment and inconvenience. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant is not remitter nor payee of the money order, so he is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The address given by the complainant is wrong and the correct address is under Guru Bazar Post Office, District Katihar (Bihar) and the money order was paid on 17/7/2007. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file and documents it is made out that the address given by the complainant to deliver the money order was wrong and the said village is not under the Post office of District Purnea but it is under the Post office Guru Bazar, District Katihar. It is also perused from the documents that the said money order has been delivered on 17/7/2007. So the delay in the delivery of the money order is not due to the fault of the opposite parties but it is the fault of the complainant himself by giving wrong address of the addressee. Even then the opposite parties delivered the money order to the addressee. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed . No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted at this stage that money order has not been received by the addressee. In view of these submissions complainant can make an application about committing of fraud by the opposite parties if money order still have not been received by the addressee, so that appropriate order is passed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 10/9/2007<br />