Superintendent of Post Office, Proddathur Division,Podathur,Kadappa Dt,Andra Pradesh 2.Superintendent of Post offices, ,Kannur Division Kannur
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
16.9.08 K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation and cost of these proceedings. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant had been working at Proddatur, Kadappa District, and Andhra Pradesh. An amount of Rs.500/- was sent to M.V.Amerashan Advocate, Payyannur on 15.2.2005. He sent money order through Head post office, Proddatur.But the addressee had not received the amount. Complainant went and made enquiry with the addressees post office at Payyannur. On 3.5.2005 complainant sent a complaint regarding the loss of money order to the Superintendent of Post office, Kannur. Reply received from Superintendent of Post office, Proddatur. It was stated that the Money order was neither received at the office concerned nor received back at the office of issue. A duplicate Money order is therefore ordered to be issued and the amount will be paid to the payee. This information had been passed to Mr.Ameresan. But money order was not reached to him. He even suspected that the complainant was telling lie. Irresponsible act of the postal Department caused much mental worries and hardship. Thus this complainant is to be compensated. He claimes Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation. Persuant to the notice opposite parties filed version admitting the sending of money order of Rs.500/- dated 15.2.2005 from Proddatur post office to Sri.M.V.Ameresan, Advocate, and Payyannur. Opposite parties contended that the complainant had not furnished the pin code number of Payyannur Post office in the relevant column of Money Order Form. At the time of electronic transmission of Money order the pin code of Panniyannur post office was inadvertently assigned to the Money Order instead of that of Payyannur. Thus money order remained to be paid to the payee or the remitter. On receipt of the legal notice the 1st opposite party ordered Post Master, Proddatur to send money order as demanded and accordingly duplicate money order was issued on 2.3.06 and the same was refused by the complainant. As the complainant had refused to accept the money order the same has not yet been paid. The dispute raised by the complainant is outside the preview of the consumer protection Act 1986. On the above pleadings the following issues have taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed. 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B5. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 It is an admitted fact that complainant has sent money order Rs.500/-from Head Post office, Proddatur, Andhra Pradesh to Sri.M.V.Ameresan, Advocate, Payyannur. Money order could not be delivered by opposite party also is an admitted fact. Opposite party contended that complainant had not furnished the pioncode number of Payyanur. But it can be seen that the address of the addressee is fully correct. Opposite parties have no case that address is wrong. As per the version of opposite parties the default took place when the electronic transmission of the money order the pin code of Panniyannur post office was inadvertently assigned to the Money order instead of Payyannur. Thus the fault is seen committed by the opposite party and not the complainant that lead to the non-performance of the duty casted upon opposite parties. But when 1st opposite party received Ext.B2 notice, issued by the complainant that the 1st opposite party responded creatively by giving orders to post Master, Proddatur to issue a duplicate Money order to the complainant. The complainant has stated that the same was also informed to complainant that a duplicate money order is ordered and the amount of money order will b e paid to the payee. But it is not understandable why such letter of information is not produced. So as to prove the second part of the information that the amount of money order will be paid to the payee. Opposite party has stated in the version that a duplicate money order was issued on 2.3.06 and the same was refused by the complainant. This was not denied by the complainant. It has also stated that as the complainant had refused to accept the money Order the same has not yet been paid. Ext.B3 proves that the duplicate Money Order was refused by the complainant. The refusal on the part of complainant caused to spoil the remedial measure implemented by the opposite party. Ext.B3 was not challenged by the complainant. Complainant has kept silence with respect to the rejection of Money order. Complainant has not filed chief affidavit. He has not even felt the necessity of arguing the case. The pleading of the opposite party that immediately on receipt of the legal notice the 1st opposite party had ordered Post Master, Proddatur to issue a duplicate Money order in favour of the complainant has not been denied by the complainant. Keeping silence on this point amounts to admission. Since such a remedial measure was taken by opposite prty immediately after the legal notice it will not be justifiable to attribute deficiency of service on happening of a mistake which otherwise cut the root of dignity of lab our. It has to be taken into account that the complainant was not interested to prove that the opposite party purposefully kept the money order without delivering it. Hence this complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Considering the circumstances we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Money order Rs.500/-. The issues 1 to 3 are answered accordingly. In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.500/- as an amount of Money Order to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite parties as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Postal receipt dt.15.2.05 issued by OP1. A2.Dupliocate money order issued by OP2 dt.22.6.05. A3.Copy of the letter dt.3.5.05 sent to OP2. A4.Letter dt.26.10.05 sent byM.V.Ameresan to complainant Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.copy of the money order sent by complainant to Amareshan B2.copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant.dt.24.2.06 B3.copy of the duplicate MO refused by the complainant B4.Copy of the order dt.2.12.99 of the National commission. B5.Copyof section 48 of the Indian post office Act 1898. Witness examined for either side Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
