BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 299 of 14.
Date of Institution: 4.11.2014.
Date of Decision: 7.4.2015.
Daya Nand son of Chandan Singh, resident of House No.1401, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Roshan Lal and Rakesh Singh, Post Office Jalan Hospital, Bhiwani.
- Superintendent, Post Office, Bhiwani Branch, Bhiwani.
- Chief Post Master, General, Haryana Circle, Ambala, Haryana.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: - Shri B.D.Yadav, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector for the respondents.
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that on 11.8.2014he booked two money orders for a sum of Rs.500/- and Rs.1200/- with the respondents for the Manager, Lok Lehar News Paper. The complainant further alleged that on 6.9.2014 he contacted the office of Lok Lehar but it was told that the money orders were not received by them. The complainant further alleged that he made several representations with the respondents regarding issuance of duplicate money orders but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he has been deprived for the delivery of News Paper. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for compensation.
2. Respondents on appearance filed written statement admitting to the extent that on 11.8.2014 the complainant had booked two money orders addressed to the Manager Lok Lehar, 15, Tal Katora Road, New Delhi and the same were dispatched on the same day. It is submitted that on 8.9.2014 a complaint was received from the complainant regarding not delivery of money order. It is further submitted that order for duplicate money order was issued on 29.9.2014 and the same were sent to the Post Master, New Delhi by Sub Post Master Jalan Hospital, Bhiwani. It is also submitted that the Post Master New Delhi intimated that both the duplicate money orders have been delivered on 19.12.2014 to the addressee. It is further submitted that the matter was got inquired through SDI (P)-2nd, Bhiwani and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 17.11.2014. It is also submitted that no period was prescribed regarding delivery of the Money Orders. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and the representative of the respondents at length.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Post Office is exempted from any liability for loss, mis delivery or delay or damage to, any postal article in the course of transmission, under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1986. So, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents on any account.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. It is an admitted fact between the parties to the extent that on 11.8.2014 the complainant had booked two money order for a sum of Rs.500/- and Es.1200/- for the Manager, Lok Lehar News Paper. The sole contention of Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the money orders were not delivered to the addressee within reasonable time. So, question now arises whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?.
7. Coming to the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding exemption from liability under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1986, Section 6 of the Act lays down that 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 far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Govt. and no officer of Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”
8. In the present case the money orders were booked on 11.8.2014 and the same were delivered to the addressee on 19.12.2014 and this fact has been admitted by the respondents in the written statement. Meaning thereby post office is at fault for non delivery of the money orders within reasonable time which was booked by the complainant and no reason is mentioned for delay in the delivery. Under these circumstances protection provided by Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1896 is not applicable to the case of the respondents as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and its object cannot be defeated by the Provisions of Indian Post Office Act.
9. From the perusal of Annexure C1 to C8 Photo stat copies of various documents it has been clearly proved that the complainant had made several correspondence with the respondents regarding non delivery of Money Orders within time and it was the duty of the Postal Department to deliver the consignment to the consignee within a reasonable time but they have failed to do so. Therefore, by not delivering the consignment to the addressee has deprived the complainant of delivery of news paper and thus he had suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. So, he is entitled for compensation from the respondents.
Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed to:-
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation in all on account of humiliation, mental agony and loss, suffered by the complainant.
- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
The delay, if any, in deciding the complaint is due to non-joining of the regular President. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Court.
7.4.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
Anita Sheoran Balraj Singh .
Member. Member
