BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.169 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 28.04.2021                   Date of Decision: 14.10.2022

Ashwani Kumar Age 55 years, S/o Sh. Pritam Chand, Resident of 213, New Amar Nagar, Gulab Devi Road, Jalandhar Mob. No.9872919507.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Sub Post Office, New Grain Market, Jalandhar. Through its Sub       Post Master/Authorized Representative.

2.       Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, G. P. O. Jalandhar.       Through its SSPOs/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. G. P. S. Rana, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that on 28.11.2020 the complainant paid Rs.2100/- to OP No.1 to deliver the said amount through eMO (Electronic Money order) to his relative namely Vandana Vijay Sharma, Ward No.49, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Channi Rama, Jammu on account of Shagun being the marriage of his relative to be celebrated on 30.11.2020. The complainant paid Rs.105/- as commission to OP No.1, vide EMO No.094873065437790060 dated 28.11.2020. The above amount order should have been reached the addressee on 29.11.2020 or 30.11.2020 but when the complainant confirmed from his relative whether the above said amount of Shagun reached them or not. The relative of complainant/address told the complainant that they have not received any money order of above said amount. On 05.12.2020 the complainant went to OP No.1 and told them the above said money order has not reached the addressee. The OP No.1 registered online complaint vide complaint No.2000630693 and told the complainant that the said money order shall reach the addressee within two or three days but the said money order did not reach the addressee within said days. On 08.02.2021, the complainant wrote his complaint to India Post through Twitter. In response to the complaint of the complainant, the Indian Post replied on 08.02.2021 that the matter is being looked into and we shall revert to you shortly. Again on 15.02.2021, the India Post replied through Twitter that suitable instructions have been issued to concerned office in this regard. Inconvenience caused is regretted. On 23.02.2021 the complainant sent his complaint to PG Chandigarh stating that “on 28.11.2020 an EMO was booked at Grain Market, Sub Post Office, Jalandhar for Jammu but the same did not deliver the addressee for which complaint No.2000630693 dated 05.12.2020 registered which not resolved till date. On 08.02.2021 complainant posted on Twitter India Post office but no solution done till today.” Again on 03.03.2021 complainant sent a reminder to PG Chandigarh that no action has been taken to solve the related issue, more than 3 months have passed and further asked the India Post how much time will be taken to resolve the issue. On 27.02.2021 the complainant again asked the OP No.1 for non-delivery of said eMO to addressee and requested to take early action. In response to above letter, the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar wrote a letter dated 02.03.2021 forwarded to complainant stating that “that the EMO is unpaid till date. The concerned offices are not replying on the CRM portal complaint.” On 18.03.2021 India Post replied that “the EMO has not been received at Channi Himmat due to technical error. EMO will get delivered tomorrow after the issue gets resolved.” On 06.04.2021 the complainant asked the India Post Office when will the EMO delivered. How much longer will it take to resolve the issue? In response to above letter the concerned employee replied through message dated 09.04.2021 that “Case pending at Jammu Division SSPO”. On 19.04.2021 complainant enquired from SSPO Jammu through email on Twitter whether the said EMO delivered to addressee?. In response to this enquiry, on 20.04.2021 the SSPO Jammu replied the complainant to provide correct EMO number alongwith date of booking and addressee detail which the complainant provided on same date i.e. 20.04.2021. But till date no action has been taken in the matter cited above. Despite so many requests, letters, emails, telephonic talks and several visits made by the complainant to OPs, the OPs have failed to deliver the said EMO to addressee which tantamount to unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to convey the above said money order of Rs.2100/- to addressee with interest @ 12% per annum till realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts that the matter has been resolved and payment has been made. On merits, the factum with regard to booking of EMO on 28.11.2020 is admitted and it is also admitted that EMO under reference was received and printed at Jammu HO on 28.11.2020. It is also admitted that complaint No.2000630693 was raised on 05.12.2020 regarding non-payment of EMO under reference. It is further admitted that the EMO under reference had already been received at Jammu HO and it has been delivered and the payment was made on 08.06.2021. It is also admitted that the matter had been taken up with Jammu Division. The reminders were also issued. The Jammu Division found the technical fault and removed it and matter was settled on 08.06.2021.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs very minutely.

6.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that on 28.11.2020, he paid Rs.2100/- to OP No. 1 to deliver the said amount through EMO (Electronic Money Order) to his relative at Jammu and he also paid Rs.105/- as commission to OP No.1, vide EMO No.094873065437790060 dated 28.11.2020, which is evident from Ex.C-1, but the said EMO has not been delivered till today. Regarding this, the complainant complained the OP No.1 and OP No.1 registered online complaint and gave an assurance that the said EMO shall reach at the destination within two or three days, but the same did not reach at destination. On 08.02.2021, complainant also filed a complaint to India Post through Twitter and on 09.02.2021 and 15.02.02021 the OP gave reply that suitable instructions have been issued to concerned office in this regard. Inconvenience caused is regretted, which is evident from Ex.C-2. Thereafter, the complainant sent his complaint to PG, Chandigarh, which is evident from Ex.C-3. Then again on 03.03.2021 complainant sent a reminder Ex.C-4 to PG Chandigarh and then again on 27.02.2021 the complainant again asked the OP No.1 for non-delivery of said EMO and requested to take early action, which is evident from Ex.C-5. In response to the letter the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Jalandhar Division, wrote a letter dated 02.03.2021, copy of which forwarded to complainant stating that the EMO is unpaid till date. The concerned offices are not replying on the CRM portal complaint, which is evident from Ex.C-6. On 18.03.2021 the India Post replied that the EMO has not been received at Channi Himmat due to technical error. EMO will get delivered the next day after the issue gets resolved. Then on 06.04.2021 the complainant asked the India Post office about the day and time of the EMO delivered, vide Ex.C-8 and in response to that the OP replied that the case is pending at Jammu Division SSPO. On 19.04.2021 complainant enquired from SSPO Jammu through email or Twitter about the delivery of EMO to addressee. In response to this enquiry, on 20.04.2021 the SSPO Jammu replied the complainant to provide correct EMO number alongwith date of booking and addressee detail which the complainant provided on same date i.e. 20.04.2021. But till date no action has been taken in the matter nor the EMO has been delivered.

7.                The contention of the OPs is that the complaint was pending at the end of Jammu Division Post Office. The OP also wrote letters to Jammu Head Office, SSPOs Jammu and others regarding non-delivery of EMO, vide letter Ex.R-W-1/1 and also wrote letter to SSPOs Jammu Division, vide Ex.RW-1/2, Ex.RW-1/3 and Ex.RW-1/4.

8.                So, from the documents it is established that the EMO was not delivered after a lapse of about one year eleven months to the addressee despite so many requests, letters, emails and several visits. No detail of any technical error has been given. These are mere assertions that the delay is not intentional without any evidence. We will like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, titled as “Superintendent of Post Office Vs. Dr. Sasadhar Panda”, decided on 08.05.2019, in which it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that “condoning the attitude of negligence and mechanically applying the protection of Section 6, which says:-

                   “Section 6 of the Act 1898:

                   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,        mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same      fraudulently or by his willful act or default.”

         Section 48(c) of the Act 1898, which provides as under:-

                    “Section 48 of the Act 1898:  

                   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 -

          (a) anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter; or

          (b) the wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or        incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and      address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete         information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the           information as a sufficient description for the purpose of         identifying the payee; or

          (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) any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of        one year from the date of the issue of the order; or

          (e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order           beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not   being one established by the Central Government.”

          and out rightly overlooking the deficiency in service under the Act 1986, will defeat the purpose of both, the relevant provisions of the Act 1898 and Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, tantamount to this Commission granting a blanket license for inefficiency and deficiency without responsibility or accountability, which situation would be absurd, to say the least.”

                   Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and the provisions of the Act, it is fully proved that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which has resulted in non-delivery of the EMO. Hence, all this has caused mental tension and agony to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the price of the EMO i.e. Rs.2100/- alongwith Rs.105 i.e. commission paid on EMO to the complainant. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

14.10.2022         Member                          Member           President