PRESENT:      Complainant in person.

Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh, Adv. for OPs.

                              ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Harcharan Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to :-

i)              To refund a sum of Rs.2000/- which was paid  to OP-2 for being handed over to Sh.Harmohinder Singh through Instant Money Order along with interest.

ii)         Refund a sum of Rs.150/- paid as commission charges for the delivery of the said Instant Money Order along with interest

iii)    To pay a sum of Rs.1350/- being the charges spent on sending the messenger for delivering the money at Faridkot.

iv)         To pay a sum of Rs.75/- being the expenses spent by his father from his residence to Post Office at Faridkot.

v)              To pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

vi)         To pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.

2.        It is the admitted case of the parties that on 11.09.2009, Sh.Harcharan Singh, booked a money order amount of Rs.2,000/-vide IMO No.3014036908941240 in the General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh for being delivered to his father (Sh.Harmohinder Singh r/o Faridkot). The above said amount was to be delivered either on the same day or on the next date. The said amount has not been delivered to Sh.Harmohinder Singh so far nor the amount has been returned to the complainant.

3.        The case of the complainant is that his father is an old man (78 years old) and is suffering from heart ailment. He needed Rs.2000/- urgently for purchasing medicines. So he telephoned the complainant and asked for money. As the amount was urgently required, the complainant opted to use the services of post office by sending the amount through Instant Money Order service. He was assured that the amount would reach by noon on the same day or will be delivered to the addressee on the next day positively. It has further been pleaded that in view of the assurance given by officials of Post Office, he asked his father to visit the post office in the afternoon of 11.09.2009 to verify as to whether the amount has been received in the said post office or not and to take the amount after furnishing the identity proof and the Code number of IMO. According to the complainant, on 12.09.09, he received a call from his father telling him that the amount has not been delivered to him despite the fact that he had visited the post office for receiving the same. The complainant was also told by his father that he was humiliated by the officials of post office. He was made to sit for a long time and was abused and insulted. Despite the fact that he wanted to contact the post master of that post office, he was not allowed to do so. According to the complainant, he contacted the postmaster on telephone and requested him to deliver the amount of Rs.2000/- to his father but he expressed his inability on the ground that the validity of the smart card has already expired. It has further been pleaded that he requested the post master to give in writing that the amount cannot be paid. Initially, he refused to do so. However, ultimately he agreed and gave in writing to this effect (Annexure C-3). It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he reported the matter to OP-1 with a request to take necessary action against the defaulting officials but no action has been taken so far.

          In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

4.        In the written statement filed by OP, it has been averred that the instant money order service is a unique type of service provided by the Department of Posts. Smart cards have been issued to the selected officials at selected post offices for booking as well as payment of Instant Money Order. The payment of Instant Money Order is not made by the postman but the payee has to attend the post office to collect the payment. No postal official can book or pay any Instant Money Order without a valid smart card issued by the NIC of India. According to OPs, in the present case, smart cards were issued to three officials at Faridkot Head Post Office for two years validity of which had expired on 07.03.2009. The Department has applied for issuance of fresh smart card which have not been issued so far. According to OPs, it was not in the knowledge of Post Officials of Chandigarh General Post Office who booked the Instant Money Order that the postal staff at Faridkot Head Post Office has no valid smart card for downloading the payment of Instant Money Order. Thus, the payment could not be downloaded because of expiry of the validity of the smart card and, therefore,  the amount could not be paid. According to OPs, Sh.Harmohinder Singh visited the post office to collect the amount and he was politely told about this fact.  He insisted to have a talk with the General Postmaster and at that time, the General Postmaster was away for lunch. Sh.Harmohinder Singh was told about this fact also. All the allegations regarding mis-behaviour and using abusive language have been denied. It has further been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable against them in view of sections 6, 48 and 220 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898.

          In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.        We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, Annexures, affidavits etc. 

6.        It was argued vehemently by the complainant that payment of the Instant Money Order has not been made to his father because of willful default on the part of the officials of the General Post Office at Chandigarh as well as officials at Faridkot Head Post Office. It was argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that the amount has not been paid due to the fact that the smart card issued to the officials at Faridkot Head Post Office had expired. Admittedly, the validity of the smart card expired on 07.03.2009. The amount was booked on 11.09.2009. It is the case of OPs themselves that Instant Money Order is a unique type of service provided by  Department of Posts. Smart cards have been issued to the selected officials at selected post offices for booking as well as payment of Instant Money Order. No postal official can book or pay any Instant Money Order without a valid smart card issued by the NIC of India. Thus in such circumstances, it was the duty of the officials who booked the money order to verify as to whether the smart card issued to the officials at Faridkot Head Post Office was valid or not? Admittedly, the validity of the smart card issued to officials at Faridkot Head Post Office had expired about six months earlier. Even then the employees of General Post Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh were not aware about this fact. To our mind before booking the amount of Rs.2000/-, it was incumbent upon the officials who booked the Instant Money Order to verify as to whether the officials at Faridkot Post Office had valid smart card or not. The amount should have been accepted only if the officials at Faridkot Post Office had valid smart card.  Booking of Instant Money Officer without such verification is a serious default on the part of the officials of   OP-2.

7.        Furthermore, even till today neither the amount has not been paid to the addressee nor the amount has been returned to the complainant. It is also a willful act and willful default on the part of officials of OP. If the Instant Money Order could not have been sent for the reasons mentioned above, the same could have been converted into a simple money order and the amount could have been paid to the addressee. Due to willful default, the said Instant Money Order was not converted into an ordinary money order and the same was not sent to the addressee nor the amount was returned to the complainant.

8.        It has been pleaded in the reply that offer was made to the complainant to take back the amount but he refused to accept the same. No such letter vide which such offer was made to the complainant has been placed on record. Nor the letter of refusal has been placed on record. In these circumstances, the self-serving deposition to this effect cannot be accepted.

9.        It was argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that OPs are exempted from any liability by virtue of section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which reads as under:-

“48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders.—

No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of—

          The learned counsel for the OPs has further placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

i)              Ganga Dutt Gupta, HUF Vs Post Master, New Sabzimandi Post Office reported in III(2003) CPJ 189 (NC)

ii)         Supdt. Of Post Office Vs. Dhan Bhadur Gurung reported in 2006(3) CLT 116

iii)    Sub Postmaster, Ladhalwal and another Vs. Anik Lal reported in 2002(1) CLT-359.

iv)         Sr.Supdt. Post Offices Vs. Balbir Singh reported in 1994(2) CLT-143

v)              The Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices, Mangalore and others Vs. Adobakkar and another reported in 2001(3) CLT 251.

          As discussed above, the clause C of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case there is a willful default on the part of officials of the OPs as mentioned above.  In these circumstances, the ratio of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the OPs is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

10.       In these circumstances, it is held that there is willful default on the part of the officials of OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also made a complaint to the Chief Post Master General at Chandigarh (OP-1) but no action has been taken which is also a willful default on his part. OP-1 was required to find as to why fresh smart card was not issued to the officials at Faridkot Head Post Office despite the fact that the validity of the smart card had expired more than six months back and further he was required to ensure that no Instant Money Order was booked by GPO, Chandigarh payable at Faridkot till such time a fresh smart card was not issued in their favour. It has been averred in the reply that an application for renewal of the smart card was given but no copy thereof was placed on record. So there is a willful default on the part of OPs No.3 and 4 also. In these circumstances all the OPs are guilty of willful default.

11.       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to jointly and severally refund a sum of Rs.2000/- of Instant Money Order and a sum of Rs.150/- taken as commission charges to the complainant. In addition to this, OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

12.       This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.12,150/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation.

13.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.02.2010