BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Friday the 22^nd day of June, 2007

C.C. No.3/2007

Dr. K. Ramaiah, S/o O. Kanakaiah,

Adarsha Clinic, Estate Road, Kallur, Kurnool District.                                                                      ... COMPLAINANT

Verses

Postal Superintendent,

O/o Postal Department, Kurnool Division, Head Post Office, Kurnool-510 001.                                                            ... OPPOSITE PARTY

          This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri.M.D.Y.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

(As per Smt. C. Preethi,  Member)

C.C. No.3/2007

1. This Consumer Case of the Complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction on Opposite Parties to refund M.O. amount of Rs.1,500/- along with M.O. charges of Rs. 103/- with interest,           Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the Complainant is that the Complainant on          04-01-2005 sent a sum of Rs. 1,500/- vide M.O. No. 7014 to his daughter             K. Sandhya Kumari studying at Belgam Medical College, Belgam through Opposite Party and Opposite Party collected Rs. 103/- as charges, but the Complainant’s daughter did not receive the said amount so far.  The Complainant’s daughter could not pay the hostel fee in time and was removed from hostel and reached Kurnool.  The Complainant contacted Opposite Party and the Opposite Party negligently replied and no action was taken even after the completion of 18 months.  Being vexed the Complainant got issued legal notice on 26-12-2006 and Opposite Parties did not give any reply.  Due to the negligent attitude of the Opposite Party the Complainant and his daughter suffered mental agony and resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. The Complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz; (1) Telegram Money Order receipt dated 04-01-2005 (2) Office copy of legal notice dated 26-12-2006 along with courier receipt and (3) Office copy of Complaint given to Opposite Party by the Complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the Complainant and third party K. Sandya Kumari and T. Murali Mohan Krishna and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 for its appreciation in this case.  The Complainant caused interrogatories to Opposite Party and the Complainant and two third parties suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by Opposite Party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the Complainant, the Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of Opposite Party admits the sending of Telegram Money Order on 04-01-2005 and denies all other allegation. And further submits that the Complainant kept quite for nearly 1 ½ years without complaining the non delivery of Telegram Money Order and it is for the first time in the legal notice of the Complainant the alleged non delivery of Telegram Money Order was heard and before the Opposite Party could iniate steps the Complainant filed this complaint.  It further submits that as per clause 81 of Opposite Party Guide, the payee of the money order has to prefer a complaint as early as possible if money order is not paid within two months from the date of Telegram Money Order and maximum 12 months from the date of Telegram Money Order after which it will not be possible to attend to them as relevant records will be destroyed.  The Complainant in this case kept quite for nearly 2 years and filed this case hurriedly.  Section 48 of the Indian Postal Officers Act, 1898 clearly bars any suit or other legal proceeding questioning the money order on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake of an officer of post office.  Hence, there is absolutely no cause of action and no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party and seeks for the dismissal of case with exemplarary costs.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is to what reliefs the Complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party? :
7. It is the simple case of the Complainant that he booked a Telegram Money Order on 04-01-2005 with Opposite Party for an amount of Rs. 1,500/- vide Ex.A1 to his daughter K. Sandhya Kumari who is studying in Belgaum and the said Telegram Money Order was not received by the Complainant’s daughter and a Complainant vide Ex.A3 was given to Opposite Party for enquiring into non receipt of Telegram Money Order and the Opposite Party endorsed to give reply shortly, but no reply was given and the Complainant got issued legal notice dated              26-12-2006 vide Ex.A2 and to this also there was not reply.
8. The main contention of Opposite Party is regarding protection U/s 48 of Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, it is seen that this age – old provision does not give blanket immunity to the postal authorities.  It is seen that the immunity available to postal authorities U/s 48 of Post Offices Act is not absolute and if there is a fraud or willful act or default on the part of any officer of the Postal Department, the Opposite Party will be certainly liable.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Post Master, Ranipet Hoeanr Vs N.B. Jana Kiraman, 2001, (3) CPR 189(NC) dealing with section 48 of Post Office Act held: “A bare perusal of Section 48 (C) would show that it does get blank immunity to the Opposite Party.  If there is fraud or willful act or default on the part of any office of the Post Office, the Opposite Party will certainly be liable”.
9. It is true that it was for the Complainant to prove the willful act or default on the part of Opposite Party resulting into non delivery of Telegram Money Order surely no direct evidence on the point could be expected from the Complainant who was wholly unaware as to what happened to the Telegram Money Order during transit.  However, the very fact that the Telegram Money Order was no reached the addressee clearly establishes that frandulent action or misichief on part of Opposite Party.  Willful act or default in the instant case was at large and clearly constitute deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party.
10. The third party affidavits of K. Sandhya Kumari and T. Murali Mohan Krishna clearly shows that the Telegram Money Order was not reached the addressee and after filling of this case there was an offer to the addressee to receive the Telegram Money Order of Rs. 1,500/- which the addressee rejected.
11. To sum up, as already pointed out such willful act or default was fully established.  Under the circumstances, the protection provided by section 48 of Post Office Act was not available to the Opposite Party.  The very fact that Telegram Money Order was not received by addressee is sufficient that there is deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is certainly liable to pay compensation and costs to the Complainant.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party to refund the Telegram Money Order of Rs. 1,500/- with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and costs of Rs. 1,000/- within a month the receipt of this order  in default the Opposite Party shall pay the supra awarded with 12% interest from the date of default till realisation.

Dictated to the Computer Operator transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 22^nd day of June, 2007.

              Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT        

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Complainant: Nil                                               For the Opposite Party: Nil

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1 Telegram Money Order receipt dated 04-01-2005       

Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice dated 26-12-2006 along with courier receipt

Ex.A3 Office copy of Complaint given to Opposite Party by the Complainant

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-  Nil

              Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT        

Copy to:

1.Sri. P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.

2.  Sri. M.D. Y Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties: