DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/18 of 14.1.2015

                                      Decided on:        15.05.2015

Amrinder Singh Arora son of S.Satnam Singh Arora, resident of Guru Nanak Nagar, Behind Nanaksar Kutia, Tripuri, Patiala.        

                                                                   …............Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Senior Superintendent Post Office, Patiala Division, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
2. Postmaster, Post Office, Tripuri, Patiala.

                                                                  …..........Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

Present:

For the complainant:      In person.

For Ops:                          Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate                 

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had sent a money order for Rs.1000/- to Sh.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari, 52, St.No.26, New Mehar Pura, Nawan Kot, Amritsar through Post Office, Tripuri, Patiala vide money order No.092160141205000309 / 5.12.2014. The complainant had remitted the said amount to enable  said Mr.Bhandari to apply for certain documents from a Judicial court at Amritsar, which were required  by the father-in-law of the complainant. The complainant informed Mr.Bhandari that he had remitted the amount through money order but he disclosed that he did not receive the amount remitted to him through money order and therefore, he could not apply for the documents.
2. The complainant made a complaint with Post Master, Post Office, Tripuri, Patiala i.e. Op no.2 with regard to the non remittance of the amount to the payee but no positive response was given by Op no.2. At this the complainant made a complaint to Sr.Superintendent Post Office, Patiala Division, Patiala i.e. Op no.1, who vide  reply dated 6.1.2015 disclosed that the amount of the money-order had not been delivered to the payee and that the same will be remitted very soon.
3. Because of the non remittance of the amount to Mr.Bhandari, he could not apply for the documents and therefore, the relationship between the complainant and Mr.Bhandari had come to an end as he stated that he will not apply for the documents until he received the payment. This resulted into the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The complainant is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as also the refund of the money-order remitted through Op no.2.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation and also to refund the amount of the money order with interest.
4. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and baseless and that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the material facts. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the Ops that one EMO No. 092160141205000309 dated 5.12.2014 for Rs.1000/- was booked from Tripuri Post Office, Patiala payable to Sh.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari resident of 52, Street No.26, New Mehar Pura ,Nawan Kot,Amritsar. A complaint regarding non- payment of the money-order was received from the remitter Sh.Amrinder Singh in the office of Op no.1 on 19.12.2014.After the receipt of the complaint, a complaint was registered on the web based customer grievance handling system with register No.14700-18382 at Amritsar GPO and it was confirmed on 7.1.2015 on web based customer care grievance handling system that EMO had not been received by that office and therefore, duplicate money order was issued by Op no.1 vide No.147000-18382 and forwarded to Sr.Post Master,Amritsar by Op no.2 under RL No.RP430963176IN dated 12.1.2015. DMO was paid on 19.1.2015 as intimated by GPO,Amritsar on 20.1.2015 and the complainant was informed accordingly on 21.1.2015.As such the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the Ops. The original money-order could not be delivered due to some technical fault in the system. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Smt.Jiwana Kumari,Sub Post Master,Tripuri Town, Patiala alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed their evidence.
7. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for the Ops and gone through the evidence on record.
8. It is a fact admitted by the Ops that the complainant had booked a sum of Rs.1000/- vide money-order No. 092160141205000309 dated 5.12.2014 through Op no.1 payable to Mr.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari of New Mehar Puri Nawan Kot, Amritsar and that the said remittance could not be delivered to the payee. It is also a fact admitted by the Ops that on a complaint made by the complainant to Op no.1 a duplicate remittance was made vide No.147000-18382 on 12.1.2015 and forwarded to Sr.Post Master, Amritsar by Op no.2 through RL No.RP430963376IN dated 12.1.2015 and DMO was paid to the payee on 19.1.2015.In this regard, reference  may be made to Ex.C1, the sanction accorded by Op no.1 on 6.1.2015 whereby Sub Post Master, Tirpuri, Patiala, was directed to issue duplicate MO in respect of money order No. 092160141205000309 of Rs.1000/- dated 5.12.2014 after following the safeguard prescribed under Rule 74 of Postal Manual Volume VI part II and to dispatch the DMO to the 143001 by registered post, as also Ex.OP1, the copy of EMO pay-in-slip dated 5.12.2014 given by the Sub Post Master,Tripuri, Patiala showing the remittance  of Rs.1000/- PNR 092160141205000309,Ex.OP3, the result of the inward complaint No.147000-18382 of the complainant Sh.Amrinder Singh made through Web Based Customer Care Grievance Handling System regarding the non-payment of the aforesaid remittance of Rs.1000/- obtained from Amritsar GPO having disclosed: “Office record has been checked but the said EMO not received in this office, destination office transfer to Patiala” January 7,2015”, Ex.OP4, the copy of the registered letter dated 12.1.2015, written to the Sr.Post Master, Amritsar, whereby DMO No. 092160141205000309 for Rs.1000/- was remitted, payable to Mr.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari and Ex.OP6, the intimation given by Op no.1 to the complainant regarding the non- payment of the money-order transaction dated 5.12.2014 for Rs.1000/-  having been settled on 21.1.2015.
9. It was submitted by Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal, the learned counsel for the Ops that the remittance of Rs.1000/- sent vide money order No. 092160141205000309 dated 5.12.2014 could not be made to the payee because of a technical fault in the system and therefore, the duplicate money order was sent on 12.1.2015 and the payment was made to the payee on 19.1.2015 and thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. He also submitted that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act,1898, it is provided: “ 6. Exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery 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 Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the 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 of default”.
10. On the other hand, the complainant submitted that he had to suffer a lot because of the amount of the money having not been paid to the payee Mr.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari and therefore, he may be awarded suitably on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him.
11. We have considered the submissions. The provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act,1898 can not be applied to the facts of the case because the said provisions pertain to the loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. The money remitted by the complainant through the money order can not be treated to be a article sent in course of transmission by post. The value of the money can not undergo any change and the same has to be remitted to the payee because it is not the same very money which is paid by the remitter nor the same is sent through a parcel. The payment of the money order is made by the payee Post Office with the help of the DMO, which is in the form of an invoice. Apparently the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act,1898 do not deal with the money remitted through the money orders.
12. We can certainly assess the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the delay of 45 days in the payment of the amount of the money order remitted by the complainant through Op no.2 because for want of the amount Mr.Pawan Parvesh Bhandari could not proceed in the matter of applying the copies of the documents to the concerned judicial court. Nothing is disclosed by the Ops as to what happened with the first remittance of Rs.1000/- made vide money order No. 092160141205000309 dated 5.12.2014. It would only go to show that there appeared some negligence or carelessness on the part of one or the other official of the Ops, which resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant and the same certainly can be said to be an act of the deficiency on the part of the Ops.
13. The complainant has not been able to rebut the plea of the Ops that the amount of the money order was paid to the payee on 19.1.2015 and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the original amount of the money order. It will not be advisable to grant an amount of interest on account of late payment of the remittance of the money order because that will be a negligible amount. We , however, taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant  because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the same is inclusive of the cost of the complaint. The ops shall make the payment to the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
14.  

Dated:15.05.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President