BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I CC. 5 / 2005 TUESDAY THE 26TH DAY APRIL 2011. S. Ramu, S/o. Late Selvaraj, Bairavanvattam, Katteri Village, Pakkirthakka, (via ) Jolarpettai, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District. 635 853. . … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Post Master General Department of Posts – India, Southern Region, Anna Salai, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. 2. The Post Master General Department of Post, State of Jammu & Kashmir. 3. The Commandant, ICPO, C/o. 56, APO. 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 5. The Sub-Post Master, (via) Jolarpettai, Iakirthakka – Post, Vellore District. 635 853. … Opposite parties. . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 11.4.2011, in the presence of Thiru.B. Jagadeesan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. G. Seralathan, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 5, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainants brother S. Somu has been employed in Border Security Force and at present he is working in border Front in Jammu and Kashmir State ; His Employment No. is 022009386-103 BN BSF “F” coy, C/o. 56 APO. His Brother S. Somu has sent Rs.3000/- to the complainant on 13.7.04 by money order. The Number of the money order is 1793 from FPO 1625 Post Office, Durgamulla at Kashmir. But the amount was not disbursed to the complainant, after several complaints sent by the complainant as well as his brother S. Somu. The amount of Rs.3000/- was given to the complainant on 12.11.04 after completion of 3 months only. His brother again sent a money order to him for Rs.3000/- on 9.9.04 under receipt No.4030 from Jammu & Kashmir border. The money order was addressed to Fakkirthakka Post Office, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District but till date the amount was not yet been handed over to the complainant. As a military man, his brother sent money by way of money order to the complainant for taking treatment to his aged weaken mother, but so far it has not been handed over to the complainant. The action of the opposite parties are highly illegal, against the code of Postal Department and also the careless and non-bothering the Customer money order’s amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The real problem of non-handing-over the money to the complainant has not been found out by the opposite parties and the same caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant pray this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- sent by money order No.4030 dt. 9.0.04 from Jammu Kashmir to Tirupattur with intent at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of claim, till payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, hardship and irreparable loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties and to award the cost of the complaint. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the 4th opposite party and adopted by the 1st , 2nd 3 opposite parties are as follows: The opposite party denies the entire allegations made in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and put the complainant strict proof of the same. The opposite parties specifically denies the entire allegation made in para -4 of the petition and states that the money order No.1793 dt. 13.7.04 booked in the Filed Post Office 1625 Durgam Ulla Kashmir was lost in transmission hence this opposite party had no knowledge about the money order the complainant had made representation on 25.10.04 after receiving the representation the opposite party had forwarded the representation to the booking office and immediately the duplicate money order was issued and the same was paid to the complainant on 12.11.04. The complainant had made his representation only after 3 months from the date of booking but the opposite party had taking efforts and delivered the lost money order within 15 days from the date of the representation hence the question of deficiency in service does not arise. If the complainant made h is representation in earlier date it will be rectified in very soon. The delay is not willful or fraudulent hence the opposite party is not liable to pay their compensation to the complainant. The opposite party specifically denies the entire allegation made in para-4 of the petition and states that the complainant made his representation only on 25.10.04 and not on 9.10.02. and it is the evident that the allegations of the complainants are baseless and with an ulterior motive. The opposite party specifically denies the entire allegations made in para -5 of the complaint and states that the complainants brother had booked another money order on 9.9.04 for Rs.3000/- under No.4030 payable to the complainant and it was paid on 22.1.05 due to the lost on transmission but the complainant concealed the fact to the Hon’ble court and filed the vexatious complaint hence it has got to be dismissed. The opposite party specifically denies the entire allegations made in para-6 of the complaint that the complainant’s mother is weakened and taking treatment due to the delayed payment of money order she suffered very much and put the complainant strict proof of the same. The opposite party specifically denies the entire allegation made in para-7 of the complaint and states that the delay in payment of the said money orders in only lost in transmission from the booking post office to the opposite party and no officer had not acted in negligent manner hence the delay is not willful and there is no deficiency of service. The opposite party specifically denies the entire allegations made in para-8 of the complaint and states that the opposite parties does not acted in high handed manner and with careless manner. Hence the question of deficiency does not arise. The complaint is not maintainable under the sole ground of the non-joinder of necessary party. Hence the petition has got to be dismissed inlimini. As per Sec.48 of the Indian Post Offices act 1898 the postal department having exemption from liability for loss or delay in respect of the money orders on the sole ground the petition has got to be dismissed. As per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices Act 1898 the Postal Department shall not incur any loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to any postal article in course of transmission the validity of the Sec.6 of the Indian Post Offices act is upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.986/1996 dt. 2.12.99 on the sole ground the petition has got to be dismissed inlimini. Therefore this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the compliant with cost. 3. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. POINT NO. (a): The complainant contended that his brother S.Somu had sent Rs.3000/- to the complainant on 13.7.04 by money order under receipt No.1793 from Filed Post Office 1625 Post Office, Durgamulla at Kashmir. After several complaints sent by the complainant as well as his brother S.Somu, the said amount of Rs.3000/- was given to the complainant on 12.11.04. i.e. after completion of three months. The complainant brother again sent money order to him for Rs.3000/- on 9.9.04 under receipt No.4030 from Jammu & Kashmir border, for taking treatment to his aged weaken mother, but so far it has not been handed over to the complainant. Therefore the action of the opposite parties highly illegal against the code of Postal Department and also the careless and non-bothering the customer money order’s amounts is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 6. The opposite parties contended that the money order No.1793 booked in the Filed Post Office 1625, Durgam Ulla Kashmir was lost in transmission hence the 4th opposite party had not knowledge about the money order. After receiving the representation from the complainant on 25.10.04, the opposite party had forwarded the representation to the booking office and immediately the duplicate money order was issued and the same was paid to the complainant on 12.11.04. The complainant had made his representation only after three months from the date of booking the money order, but the opposite party had taking efforts and delivered the lost money order within 15 days from the date of the representation, the delay is not willful or fraudulent, hence the question of deficiency in service does not arise. Further the complainant’s brother had booked another money order on 9.9.04 for Rs.3000/- under receipt No.4030 payable to the complainant and it was paid on 22.1.05 due to the lost on transmission but the complainant concealed the fact to the to this Forum. The delay in payment of the said money order in only lost in transmission from the booking post office to the opposite party and no officer had not acted in negligent manner hence the delay is not willful and there is no deficiency of service. It is further contended that as per Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act 1898 the Postal Department shall not incur any loss, mis-delivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. 7. It is admitted fact that the complainant’s brother S.Somu has sent Rs.3000/- to the complainant on 13.7.04 by money order under receipt NO.1793 from Filed Post Office 1625 Post office, Durgamulla at Kashmir. The contention of the complainant that the said money order amount was disbursed to the complainant after three months from the date of booking at FPO 1625 Post Office, Durgamulla at Kashmir. According to the opposite parties that after receiving the representation from the complainant on 25.10.04 the opposite party had forwarded the representation to the booking office at Filed Post Office 1625, Durgamula at Kashmir and immediately the duplicate money order was issued and the same was paid to the complainant on 12.11.04. The Money order No.1793 dt. 13.7.04 booked in the Filed Post Office 1625, Durgamulla, Kashmir was lost in transmission hence the 4th opposite party had not knowledge about the money order. The complainant had made his representation only after three months from the date of booking and the opposite party had taking efforts and delivered the lost money order within 15 days from the date of the representation. 8. It is admitted fact that the 2nd money order under receipt No.4030, booked at Jammu and Kashmir border on 9.9.04. The contention of the complainant that the above said money order amount was not yet disbursed to him. The 4th opposite party stated in his proof affidavit that the complainant’s brother had booked another money order on 9.9.04 for Rs.3000/- under M.O.No.4030 payable to the complainant and it was paid on 22.1.05 due to lost in transmission. From the perusal of letter Ex.A8, dt. 5.1.05, from the Department of Posts – India, Tirupattur Customer Care Center to the Commandant, ICBPO, C/o 56 APO it is mentioned that the money order No.4030 dt. 9.9.04 for Rs.3000/- of Filed Post Office 1615 was not received for payment till 30.12.04 as intimated by the Sub-Post Master, Pakkirithakka S.O. As the payee is pressing hard and decided to approach legal Forum for Redressal ,action may be taken to issue duplicate money order early. After receiving the above said letter Filed Post Office 1615 C/o. 56 APO, has sent a letter Ex.B3, dt. 14.1.05 to the Sub-Postmaster Jolarpettai, S.O. in its letter the Filed Post Master stated as follows: “Issue of Duplicate M.O. in 1220 of 1615 FPO M.O. No.4030 dated 09.09.04 for Rs.3000/- payable to S. Ramu Katteri Village, Biravan Vattam, Pakkirithakka Jolarpettai via Vellore TN 635 853 remitted by CTS Somu No.2009356 ’03 BN BSI 1.Refer to 28 Dir Postal Unit letter No.05/VIII -05 / MO.147/04-05 dated 11.Jan 05. 2.The above particularized DMO has been issued fee payment to the payee on this date. Please intimate the date of payment to this SPO. 3. Please guard against double payment. “ Therefore it is clear that the above said money order amount under Receipt No.4030 was paid on 22.1.05 due to lost in transmission. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further argued that as per Sec. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act read as follows: - 6. “Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery delay or damages: “The Government, shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so for as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damages, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willfull act or default. Section 6 can be divided into two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the Government and the second part deals with the liability of the officers of the Post Offices. In the present case the delay in payment of the said money orders in only lost in transmission from the booking post office to the 4th opposite party and no officer had not acted in negligent manner hence the delay is not willful. The contention of the opposite parties that the opposite parties have exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post under section 6 of the Postal Act is acceptable. 10. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A10 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 11. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 12. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 26th day of April 2011. xxxxxxxxx MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 12.11.04 - X-copy of Money order receipt. Ex.A2- 9.10.04 - X-copy of letter from the complainant to the 4th Opp party. Ex.A3- 2.11.04 - X-copy of letter by Tirupattur Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur. Ex.A4- -- - X-copy of Money order receipt No.4030. Ex.A5- 3.1.05 - X-copy of Lawyer notice. Ex.A6- -- - X-copy of Postal Receipt. Ex.A7- -- - X-copy of Ack. Card. Ex.A8- 5.105 - - X-copy of letter byTirupattur Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur. Ex.A9- 11.3.03 - X-copy of Sri Guru Hospital Prescription. Ex.A10-14.5.04 - X-copy of Sri Guru Hospital Prescription. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 25.10.04 - X-copy of compliant by the complainant. Ex.B2- 31.10.04 - X-copy of Money order No.1625 on behalf of the Opposite party. Ex.B3- 14.1.05 - X-copy of Money order No.4030 filed on behalf of the opposite Party. Ex.B4- 2.11.04 - X-copy of letter by the Tirupattur Customer Care Centre. xxxxxxxxx MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
