Haryana

StateCommission

A/94/2016

MUKESH K.GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG

01 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      94 of 2016

Date of Institution:    29.01.2016

Date of Decision :     01.02.2016

 

Mukesh K. Garg s/o late Sh. Brij Lal, Resident of House No.1001, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      The Superintendent/Incharge, Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana, through Incharge/authorized signatory Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula-134112.

2.      Ms. Sushma Miglani, Post Master, Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana, through Incharge/authorized signatory Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula-134112.

3.      Ms. Shivangi Sharma, P.A., Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana, through Incharge/authorized signatory Post Office, Sector-4, Panchkula-134112.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Kunal Garg, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant is directed against the order dated January 5^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.

2.      Mukesh K. Garg-complainant/appellant, sent two money orders of Rs.500/- each out of which one was to be delivered to Ms. Rekha Goyal at Ferozpur Cantt, Punjab and another to Ms. Usha Mittal at Gurgaon. The money orders not being delivered at the destination, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 8^th October, 2015. However, after filing complaint, one of the money orders was delivered to the addressee at Ferozpur, Punjab, on 20^th October, 2015 and the other was delivered at Gurgaon on 16^th October, 2015.

3.      The respondents/opposite parties, in their reply stated that both the money orders were transmitted to centre server on the same day, that is, 20^th August, 2015. However, erroneously one of the money orders firstly was delivered at wrong address on 21^st August, 2015 and the same was delivered at the correct address on 20^th October, 2015. The other money order was delayed due to some technical problem and the same was delivered to the addressee on 16^th October, 2015.

4.      Vide impugned order the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the respondents/opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/-.

5.      The appellant/complainant has sought the enhancement of compensation by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Chief Post Master General & others versus Tej Narain Mishra (Dr.) & others, 2015(2) CLT 357.

6.      In the considered view of this Commission no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. In Tej Narain Mishra’s case, the money order of Rs.3200/- was sent on 9^th April, 2003 and the same was delivered to the payee on 31^st August, 2005, that is, after about five months. The complaint being filed under the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.  In the case in hand both the money orders were of Rs.500/- each; the same were delivered within two months and the complainant has been awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/-. So, the compensation awarded to the complainant is just and reasonable keeping in view the amount of money orders and the period of default in delivering the money orders.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 

 

Announced 01.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL