Orissa

Jajapur

CC/15/2019

Rabinarayan Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master,Jajpur Head Post Office. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2019

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:     1. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                          2. Miss Smita  Ray, Lady Member                               

                                             Dated the 31 st day of  August,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 15  of 2019.

Rabinarayan Sahoo   , S/O Late Akshya Kumar Sahoo    

Vill. Penthabad ,P.O. Bamadevpur    

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

 

1. Post master ,Jajpur Head post office , At/P.O/ Dist . Jajpur.

      2.   Post Master, Binjharpur, At/P.O/ Binjharpur. Dt.Jajpur .

 

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                             Self.

For the Opp.Parties :                              Addl. Govt. Standing Counsel.

                                                                                                     Date of order:    31 . 08. 2019.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , L A D Y  M E M B E R  .

Deficiency in postal service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The facts  as per complaint petition in short are that the petitioner required some information through RTI application from the public information officer , office of the  Asst.  Executive Engineer ,Rural works ,Sub- division, Binjharpur    . Accordingly as per Regd. Letter  dt.   23. 04.18  from the P.I.O , Asst. Executive Engineer Rural works Sub-division,  Binjharpur the petitioner sent  money order of  Rs.296/- in favour of the P.I.O officer of  , office of  the  Asst. Executive Engineer, Rural works division. At/P.O. Binjharpur, Dt. Jajpur   on dt. 08.5.18 from  the jajpur head post office ( o.P.no.1)  but after lapse of 5 months  the above money order was returned back to the petitioner   .

            That due to non payment of Rs 296/-  to the payee  without 15 days from the date of received of the letter  in Public information officer, office of the Asst. Executive Engineer, rural works Sub-division ,Binjharpur ,Dist. Jajpur  the R.TI application was rejected by the P.I.O . Hence the information which  was required by the petitioner was not provided and the petitioner sustained  both in financial and mental strain  due to non receipt of  the information .  The petitioner though  intimated to  postal authority,  jajpur head post office , post master , Binjharpur  and Superintendent of post offices, cuttack North Division  but no result .  Finding no other alternative the petitioner  knocked the door of this Fora  with the prayer to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service .

            After  receipt of notice ,  the O.P  appeared through their learned  advocate and subsequently filed the  written version .  In the written version the O.Ps have  taken  the stand that the present case instituted against the O.Ps by the complainant  basing upon a false and fabricated story. But the true fact is that the Mo. No.084494257560475020  which was booked by the complainant on dt. 08.05.2018 at jajpur Head post office  in the name of PIO cum Asst. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Sub-division, at. Binjharpur, Dist.Jajpur was unable for payment to the payee because of the delivery jurisdiction of payee as  address was coming under Sayedpur Branch post office with Arei Sub post office which PIN is 755027, so the eMO was redirected to Arei S.O for effecting payment. But the same was not received at Arei S.O due to unknown technical issue as wrong PIN code which was duly mentioned by the complainant.

            That the same non payment of eMO matter came to light when the complainant sought for payment of information of the eMO under RTI Act before the CPIO cum Supt.of post offices, Cuttack North Division  vide RTI application dt. 01.08.2018 and thereafter as the matter was delayed , a duplicate eMO was issued in lieu of the original and which was sent to Arei  S.O for payment to the payee vide SPOs, Cuttack North Division memo no.CR/Misc/04-05 dt. 25.09.2018 ,but the same was refused by the payee for the reason best known to him. Thereafter the eMO was returned to the sender by Arei S.O and the same eMO has been duly received by the complainant on dt.24.10.18. Whenever the complainant is an RTI activist he must has best knowledge about the different channels available in the Department of posts, but  before filing of this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum, the complainant neither submitted any written complaint nor lodged complaint through India post toll free No.1924, India post call centre no.18002666868 or India post CC complaint or CPGRAM complaint etc.

That besides as per section 48(c) of the Indian post office Act, 1898 , no suit or other legal proceedings shall 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 willful act or default of such officer. On the  other hand the complainant has been left to the PIUO cum Asst. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Sub-division, At.Binjharpur, Dist.jajpur ,pin.755004 from this case as said officer is a necessary party and to whom should have to be examined by this  Hon’ble Forum , because said officer is the vital part of this dispute  as to why said eMO was refused by said officer and  he  only can  explain  the truth the false allegation made by the complainant.

            In view of the facts of the present complaint and claim of Rs.10,000/- made by the complainant is not maintainable as it is bad in law  and the dispute is liable to be dismissed with cost .

On the date of hearing we heard the argument  for the complainant  and for  the learned advocate  of O.ps. After perusal of the record and documents in details  it is observed that it  is undisputed  fact that the petitioner had sent Rs. 296/- by M.O through  O.P.no.1 on 05.4.18  after completing due formalities  to the PIO office cum  Asst. Executive Engineer, Rural works Sub-Division ,At. Binjharpur , Dist .jajpur    under R.T.I Act as per letter of the above authority dt.23.4.18.

The petitioner alleged that the O.P did not pay the MO  to the PIO  of the above authority in stipulated time  for which his RTI application was rejected  and the O.P  returned the money of the M.O to the petitioner after lapse  of 5 months . On the other hand the O.P  taken the stand that he was unable to  pay to the payee because of the delivery jurisidiction of payee address was coming under Sayedpur Branch post office with Arei sub post office which PIN is 755027 , so the eMO was redirected to Arei S.O for effecting payment. But the same was not received at Arei S.O due to unknown technical issue as wrong PIN code which was duly mentioned by the complainant.

            On this point it is our considre4d view  that the petitioner  sent the money order to the PIO on dt.8.5.18 but  the O.P returned the  money order to other petitioner  on dt.24.10.18   more than after lapse of 5 months . Accordingly we do not understand under what circumstances the money order was kept pending at the level of O.ps for  5 months  . On the other hand the O.P has taken the stand that the  payee address  is not complete  and the  proper  PIN code was  not mentioned. But it is not known  under what circumstances the O.P.no.1 without proper  pin code of required  addressee  as well as   the payer  is a Govt.  office  and   PIO public officer   as it is observed  that it is duly known  to all public notices in the locality.  Hence the stand taken  by  the O.Ps  regarding non  payment of money order  to the payee is not sustainable as per law for which the petitioner  suffered  .

Hence this order

             The dispute is allowed against the  O.Ps .  The O.Ps are  directed to pay Rs. 5,000 /- ( five thousand )  to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order , failing which the petitioner  can take steps  as per law .

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st  day of  August,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.