1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he sent Rs. 300/- on 10.10.2014 vide EMO no. 088065141010000641 to one Kamal Kumari Mahapatra of Khurda, he has also sent Rs. 300/-on the same date vide EMO no. 088065141010000642 to one Sanyasi Patnaik and also sent an amount of Rs. 200/- on the same date vide EMO no. 088065141010000640 to one Rankanidhi Dakua of K.S. Naagar. It is also alleged that he has sent the EMOs at the Sub-Post Office, Balimela and in return he has received the E.M.O. receipts, but the said amounts have not received by the persons in whose name the EMOs were sent, for which he lodged a written representation to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Jeypore through the Sub-Post Master, Balimela for its enquiry, in return the Sub-Post Master has acknowledged the receipt of the letter, since Sr. SPO, Jeypore did not make enquiry and sent any reply and with other allegations, the complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund EMO amounts with interest and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the Opp. Parties have appeared in this case and filed their joint counter denying all the allegations of complainant stating that the E.M.O are to be transmitted through web to the payment office for payment and due to computer crash at Balimela SO on dated 10.10.2014 the said E.M.O could not be retrieved for retransmissions, but after receipt the notice from the Hon’ble Forum, they made enquiry and after due enquiry, they found that the said data of EMO has not yet been received by payment office for payment, as such they issued orders for issue of duplicate money orders and those were served to Rankanidhi Dakua on 27.05.2015 vide EMO no. 088065141010000640, to Kamala Kumar Mahapatra on 23.05.2015 vide EMO no. 088065141010000641 and to Sanyasi Patnaik on 27.05.2015 vide EMO no. 088065141010000642 respectively.   Further they have contended that the delay was caused only due to system crash but not for any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department.  It is also contended that complainant has not raised any specific allegation of fraudulent or willful act by the Opp.  Parties, as such, by giving emphasize / immunity to Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Opp. Parties has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary costs.
    
3. Parties have filed certain documents and affidavit.  We perused the documents available in the record.  On repeated adjournments, the complainant was absent before the Forum, hence we lost opportunities to hear from the complainant regarding his sufferings alongwith other contentions, whereas the Opp. Parties are present at the time of hearing, however, on merit of the case and documents filed by the parties, we have found the followings.
    
4. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant on 10.10.2014 had sent Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- in favour of (i) Kamal Kumari Mahapatra of Khurda, (ii)Sanyasi Patnaik of Kantabanji and (iii) Ranknidhi Dakua of K.S. Nagar through EMO vide its EMO no. 088065141010000641, EMO no. 088065141010000642 and EMO no. 088065141010000640 respectively.  Complainant has filed certain documents to that effect.  It is also evidentiary fact that due to non remittance of above referred money to the payees, the complainant had lodged a written representation to the O.P. No. 1 i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Koraput Division, Jeypore and the same was also acknowledged by the O.P. No. 2 i.e. Sub-Post Master, Balimela S.O.   Complainant has filed document to that effect also.   Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the EMOs were not remitted in due time to the respective payees.
    
5. Further on perusal of the submissions and documents filed by the O.Ps, it is ascertained that the said EMOs were remitted to payees after issue of duplicate money orders in favour of the respective payees vide EMO No. 088065141010000640 on 27.05.2015, EMO No. 088065141010000641 on 23.05.2015 and EMO No. 088065141010000642 on 27.05.2015 and the delay was caused only due to the computer system crash at Balimela SO on dated 10.10.2014 but not for any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department.O.Ps have filed certain documents to that effect, from which it can be safely concluded that the EMOs have been remitted to the payees at a belated stage.
    
6. Further, the contentions of the complainant that he has suffered mental agony for non-receipt of the E.M.O. amount sent to the addressees could have been measured, had the complainant present before this Forum and establish his sufferings.  Due to absence of complainant, his plea in regard to his sufferings cannot be measured and as such, the liability cannot be conferred upon the O.Ps without any cogent evidences from the side of complainant.

Catena of verdicts of Higher Authorities are available in this regards.  In one case, Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Punjab Tourism Development Corporation, Chandigarh Versus Kirti P. Doshi reported in 1986-99 Consumer 3877 (NS) held that

“B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 14(1)(d) – compensation – negligence – compensation can be awarded to a consumer only in respect of any loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to the negligence of the Opposite Party – held there are no allegations of negligence in the complaint much less proved against the Opposite Party in  not speedily setting up the Holiday homes at all the 10 locations within a period of two years as promised.  Burden to allege and prove negligence of the Opposite party is on the Complainant who approaches the Consumer Fora – as no negligence of the Opposite Party is established on record, one of the pre-conditions for grant of compensation laid down in Section 14(1)(d) of the Act are not satisfied – also no material on record to determine the quantum of compensation – the quantum of compensation can only be adjudged and assessed on the basis of well accepted principles whether the loss was a direct result of the negligence or whether it was remote.  In the absence of proof, the State Commission was not justified to arbitrarily fix the compensation at Rs. 25,000/- - the compensation is only for the monetary loss actually suffered and such compensation is not be given for any imaginary loss or indirect loss.”     

7. Further, emphasizing on the provision U/s 48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the OPs contended that the delay was caused only due to the computer system error but nor for any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department.  We have carefully gone through the provisions U/s 48 of the said Act, 1898, which says that

Section 48 : Exemption from liability in respect of money orders – No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against [Government] or any officer of the Post Office in respect of

(a) ______

(b) ______

(c) the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of, any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by, or on the part of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer; or

(d) ______

(e) ______

Whereas, in the case in hand, the Complainant has not uttered any single and specific word regarding any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department, which caused the delay of remittance of money being sent. And the Complainant has miserably failed to establish his submissions made in his claim petition.Therefore, we feel that since there is no cogent evidence from the side Complainant, the plea regarding his sufferings cannot be measured and the liability cannot be conferred upon them.

8. Hence, it can be safely concluded that in the case in hand, the complainant miserably failed to establish his allegations regarding his sufferings and loss, and so also has failed to prove the unfare trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence we are not inclined to pass any order for compensation against the O.Ps.

ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of December, 2017.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.