Present : Biswanath De …. President
The fact of the case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1000/- through EMO to Himangshu Chakraborty , who is a very close known person to the complainant at Village & P.O. Gobindapur, Rthtala, Via Shyampur, District Howrah from Chinsurah Head Post office vide EMO no.139694140307026568 on 7.3.2014. The complainant further states that after two weeks from the date of remitting the M.O. the said money did not reach the addressee. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 28.3.2014 to the Superintendent of Posts, North Hooghly Division, regarding nonpayment of EMI, but the concerned office turned a deaf ear to the complaint of the petitioner. Lastly, the complainant came to know that the said M.O. was delivered on 5th May, 2014. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant with a prayer as laid down in the prayer portion of the complaint.
Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.2 is that one EMO for Rs.1000/- was booked at Chinsurah H.O. on 7.3.2014 vide no.139694140307026568 for payment to Himanshu Chakraborty , Gobindapur B.O. under Shyampur S.O. Howrah 711314. Dr. Panda lodged a written complaint earlie3r to the Supdt. Of Post North Hooghly Division, Chinsurah on 28.3.2014 and in this connection a web complaint had been lodged under Regd. no.712000-055559 on 20.5.2014 . Immediate3ly a letter of acknowledgeme3nt with reference to complaint no.712000-05559 was issued vide SPOS North Hooghly Division letter no.712000-05559 dated 20.5.2014 that the said E MO had been paid on 5.5.2014. Immediately after receiving the information S.P. of Pos’ North Hooghly Division he furnished a settled reply on 20.5.2014 to Dr. Panda. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint as it is harassive in nature, lacks merit.
Complainant filed photo copies of seven documents marked as Enclo 1 to 7. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and WNA. OP filed photo copy of Revision petition no.3591 of 2009 passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, Indian Post Act 1898. OP also filed Written version, Evidence in chief and WNA.
OP no.1 prayed for expunging his name from the cause title of the complaint as he has no role in the instant case and after hearing this Forum expunged the name of the oP no.1 from this case vide its order no.9 dated 7.4.2016.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is admitted fact as it appears from the record that complainant sent money order to one relative in view of his word given to that relative to pay some money in latter marriage ceremony. Accordingly, complainant sent Money order of Rs.1000/- to his relative through on 7.3.2014 from Chinsurah Post office vide E.M.O. no. 139694140307026568, counter 2 (enclosure 1) . Later on the complainant was addressed by Himangshu Chakraborty in the last week of April, 2014 informing the complainant not receiving the money order and the said person had written to this complainant some abusive language telling the complainant a cheater and told that complainant did not send any money. Xerox copy of that letter has been enclosed as enclosure 3 dated 15.4.2014 from Himangshu Chakraborty to this complainant. In para 8 complainant stated that he came to know that the M.O. was delivered on 5.5.2014 ,enclosure filed. Complainant also took information from the Post office but failed to get any redressal from Superintendent of Post office. The complainant is an old person of 68 years. He has been assaulted by using those words communicated by letter. So the complainant being aggrieved by the letter filed this case for deficiency in service against the oP. The other papers also shows enclosure 4 that the complainant is a cardiac patient. Op in this case also filed Evidence in chief and no documents have been filed by the oP. OP admitted the fact and the money order was delivered on 5.5.2014. It is also stated by the Op that Service of the Post office does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act (Indian Post office Act 1898, clause 220 and 248). The Op no.2 Superintendent of Post office, Hooghly has also filed an application striking out OP’s name which has been allowed. So from the above circumstances it is established in record that money order was delivered after long period and on 5.5.2014. In the Text Book in the clause of deficiency in service it is stated non delivery of money order at the correct address per se amounts to deficiency in rendering services and delay in delivering Money also amounts to deficiency in service in view of the provision of Section 14(1) of C.P.Act , 1986. We are quoting one citation from the Book written by S.P.Sengupta , Commentaries of the Consumer Protection Act at page 327 wherein it has been quoted -
“ Telegram Master (0) , Belgaum v E.F.D’Silva 1991 CPJ 394 (Kant) (in this case telegram was delivered after 17 days and the complainant was awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation. See also Surinder Singh v Post Master General 1991 CPJ 521 (Goa) in this case one telegraphic money order sent as a gift for the complainant’s brother’s daughter reached the payee after a month and another telegraphic money order sent by the complainant’s son did not reach the complainant within 6 days. The Postal Dept. was held negligent. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded as compensation for he ‘loss of reputation as well as mental and physical agony’)”.
The Op submitted one Ruling of Hon’ble National Commission, Revision petition of 3591 of 2009 in accordance with the Post office Act 1898 and submitted that in this case Post office is not liable for any act for commission or omission ……………….. Post office cannot be equated with common carrier. So the fact of that case and the case in our hand is different. Accordingly, principle of law is inapplicable in this case.
So, from the fact it is established that the Money order was delivered after a lapse of about two months to the addressee and the Post office is liable for this act of Negligency. The Post office authority has no control over the Post Master and subordinate employee of the Post office. Their act is devoid of due care and attention. Accordingly it is ordered that the material on record prove the case and the case succeeds. The complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 111 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.2 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his unnecessary mental agony , harassment and pain. The Op no.2 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost. The Op no.2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day will be imposed upon the OP no.2 and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund, after the statutory period of 30 days.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
