Shiny Mol M.V filed a consumer case on 30 Jul 2008 against Postmaster in the Thiruvananthapuram Consumer Court. The case no is 279/2004 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
7. At this juncture, the aspect that would arise for consideration is whether the complainant has proved that there is wilful neglect on the part of the opposite parties and whether the opposite parties have succeeded in establishing their contention that the delay had occured due to technical reason. In the version, the opposite parties have contended that, the print out of money order sent through V-SAT, Thiruvananthapuram 11 could not be taken by the Office of payment at ESMO-HAL II stage HO, Bangalore due to technical reasons and thus the payment was delayed. DW1 has deposed that "....
From the above deposition it is evident that the money order has not been sent and though the opposite parties had the facilities to find out the status of the money order, it is seen not utilised by the opposite parties. DW1 has stated that they would check whether the money order has been sent within a period of 10 days or else they would proceed further for the delivery of the money order. In the instant case, the status of the money order which was sent on 24..05..2004 had come to the knowledge of the opposite parties only on 15..06..2004 that too when opposite parties had made enquiry on the basis of the oral complaint received from the complainant. Though the complainant denies that no such oral complaints were made, she has averred in the complaint that she had made enquiries with regard to the status of the money order, which the opposite parties would have considered as a complaint. The opposite parties have not taken any steps for the delivery of the money order, which has not been sent within a period of 10 days. The further submission of DW1, that, they would not proceed unless they get a complaint with regard to the same is not at all acceptable. When a consumer approaches the Postal Authoroities for sending money order, they expect a proper service from the authorities. When the opposite parties accept the money order to be sent, a duty is cast upon them to check whether it has reached its destination, if not take prompt action for delivering the same. In this case, the opposite parties had the facility to chek the status of the money order after 10 days and they have not done it, and only on the basis of the complainant's enquiry they have proceeded further. The opposite parties have not taken due care and attention in ensuring the delivery of the M.O within time. Opposite parties have not produced any evidence to substantiate the deposition of DW1 stating that they are not bound to inform the customer with regard to the non-delivery of the money order on verification even after 10 days. This act shows that there has been wilful default on the part of the opposite parties.
8. In this case, though the opposite parties have alleged that due to technical reasons they could not send the money order is not supported by any evidence. Simply the opposite parties cannot evade their liability and seek immunity under Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act. The opposite parties contend that the money order sent through V-SAT could not be taken by office at Bangalore due to technical reasons. If the opposite parties are clinching on technical reasons for the delay caused, then it has to be proved and corroborated with ample evidence. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to corroborate the same. In the absence of such evidence, adverse presumption is taken against the opposite parties.
9. The very factum of non-delivery of the money order at its destination is an act suggesting default and a clear deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the Postal Department. The opposite parties had to prove with evidence the delay in disbursement of the money order if they wanted to rely upon the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Post Office Act. The opposite parties are in possession of necessary documents and had the special knowledge of the facts how the money order booked by the complainant was dealt with by the employees of the Post Office. From the material placed on record, it is seen that the opposite parties have no evidence to show that the delay in sending money order by V-SAT has occured due to technical reasons.
10. For the foregoing discussions, the Forum is of the concerned view that the complainant has succeeded in proving her complaint. The negligence on the part of the opposite parties in handling the money order in dispute negligently stands proved and the opposite parties have failed to substantiate their contention with proper evidence. In the above circumstance the opposite parties are not entitled to immunity under Sec. 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act.
11. Point No. (iii) : The complainant had sent the money order at Bangalore for getting form for MBA admission. Though the said form did not reach the destination and eventhough the purpose has not been served she has managed to get the form. The complainant has no case that, due to the negligent act of the opposite parties she lost a chance for applying for MBA. Since the negligence on the part of opposite parties have been proved beyond doubt, the complainant has to be compensated for the same. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged and hence the compensation claimed stands admitted by the opposite parties. It is true that the affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged, on the other side the affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office also stands unchallenged. In the above circumstance, considering the materials on record and evidences, we are of the view that though there is only a short delay, since the purpose of sending the money order has not been served, the complainant has to be compensated and the complainant is found entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for the negligent act of the opposite parties. Since the complainant has already received the money order amount of Rs.900/-, we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.45/- paid as commission along with a cost of Rs. 500/- also. Admittedly the opposite parties were ready to refund the money order amount of Rs. 900/- only, at an earlier stage itself and the complainant had refused to accept the same as it was not accompanied with any amount for compensation also and so the amount was with the opposite parties for 6 ½ months. Hence, we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any interest for the amount of Rs. 900/-.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,045/- (Rupees One thousand and fortyfive onlt) along with a cost of Rs.5,00/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within a month, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of July, 2008.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No. 279/2004
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Original Intimation letter dated 25..06..2004 of money order No.1207 for Rs. 900/- from Deptt. Of Posts.
P2 : Original letter No.10-160-698-1464 dated 18..06..2004 addressed to the complainant from Customer Care Centre.
P3 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..06..2004 addressed to the Customer Care Centre, General Post Office, Tvpm by the complainant.
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : Sudeendran
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Photocopy of letter No.V- SAT/TVM/DLGS/03-04 Dtd. 12..06..2004.
D2 : Photocopy of status of money order outward Deptt. Of post.
D3 : Photocopy of letter from Deptt. Of Post, white field (P.O), Bangalore.
D4 : Photocopy of letter dated 17..06..2004 from Bangalore 560 008.
D5 : Photocopy of letter dated 18..06..2004 issued by the complainant.
D6 : Photocopy of letter dated 17..06..2004 to the Post Master, White field Bangalore.
D7 : Original money order form dated 24.05.04
D8 : Attested copy of letter No.CR-10-160- 698-1464 dated 19..06..2004 from Deptt. of Posts.
PRESIDENT.
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A ......................Smt. S.K.Sreela ......................Sri G. Sivaprasad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.