BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 431/2005 Filed on 21/12/2005.
Dated: 15..01..2010 Complainants: Jalaja Jayakumar, w/o Jaya Kumar, J.K. Nivas, Station Kadavu, Shanthi Nagar, Kazhakuttom, Thiruvananthapuram. Jaya Kumar, S/o Varijakshan, of ..do.. Sanjith Jayan, S/o Jaya Kumar, of ..do..
(By Adv. Victor D' Silva)
Addl. 4th complainant: 4.Renjith Jayan, s/o Jaya Kumar, of ..do.. Opposite parties:
The Postal Telegraph Department, The Chief Post Master General, Office of the Chief P.M.G., Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram 695 033. The Post Master, (Ravindhran in charge), Kulathoor Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 583. The Post Master, (Lalithamma in charge), Kazhakkuttom Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 582.
This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2009, the Forum on 15..01..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, 1st and 2nd complainants sent a money order for Rs. 2,500/- to the 3rd complainant at 51 D, MIG Complex, Pocket 6, New Kondly, Mayur Vihar PA, New Delhi on 16/8/2005 through Kulathoor Post Office, that the said money order never reached to the destination, that on getting the said information from the 3rd complainant, 1st and 2nd complainants sent another money order for Rs. 3,000/- to one Jaya V. Nair, 9-G, Pocket-A-1, Phase III Mayur Vihar, New Delhi on 6/10/2005 and the same was also not reached to the destination, that even after lodging complaints to opposite parties 2 & 3 about the non-delivery of the said money orders to the addressees concerned, they refused to give reasonable reply. It is further submitted by the complainant that instead of taking any action against the officers concerned, the 1st opposite party sent a duplicate money order for Rs.2,500/- to the 3rd complainant and the same was received by him under the impression that the said money order was sent by his parents. It is further submitted by the complainants that the 3rd complainant could not complete the training course in time due to non delivery of the said money orders thereby the 3rd complainant was ousted and terminated from one year training course conducted by the company and he lost his future propectus and career and seven months training course period became fruitless and incurred a great loss of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to complainants along with cost of the proceedings.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, that complainants are not consumers as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, that complainants have no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings, that the complaint is with regard to the non payment of two money orders on different dates and therefore a joint complaint for different cause of action is bad in the eye of law, that the money order for Rs. 2,500/- was sent by one Renjith on 16/8/2005 from Kulathoor Post Office and other money order for Rs. 3,000/- was sent by one Jalaja Jayan on 6/10/2005 from Kazhakkuttom Post Office and therefore the complainants are not consumers. It is further averred in the version that the money order was despatched to the destination on the very same day through Railway Mail Service, Thiruvananthapuram, that the said money order was received by the Kazhakkuttom Post Office on 23/9/2005 with remark that the payee was not available in the given address, the remark of the Postman in the office furnished on the reverse of the original money order forms reveals the efforts made by the Postaman for payment of money order on 23/8, 24/8, 25/8, 26/8, 27/8, 29/8 & 30/8/2005. On receipt of the complaint from Sri. Renjith Jayan, the 1st opposite party ordered to issue duplicate money order vide phone message dated 25/11/2005 and accordingly a duplicate money order was issued to the payee on 28/11/2005. Another money order for Rs. 3,000/- payable to one Sri. Jaya V. Nair was despatched to the destination on the same day, the said money order was returned with remark "incomplete address" dated 21/10/2005, that on receipt of complaint dated 21/10/2005 from the remitter, the Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram issued sanction for duplicate money order and accordingly 3rd opposite party issued DMO on 26/11/2005 and the same was paid to the payee on 10/2/2006, that there was no laches on the part of opposite parties, proper action was taken to issue duplicate money orders according to the Provisions of relevant Rules. There are inevitable administrative processes to deal with the complaints with regard to money transctions and for issue of duplicate money orders. It is in order to avoid double payments or wrong payments. It is further averred in the version that opposite aprties are exempted from liability unless it is proved that any particular employee has committed fraud or wilful act with malafide intention. Section 48 (e) of the Post Office Act provides absolute immunity from liability. Hence complainants are not entitled to any relief what so ever from the opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether opposite parties are entitled to exemption from liability in respect of money order as Under Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act? Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation, If so at what amount?
4. In support of the complaint, 1st complainant has filed proof affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P12 were marked. Addl. 4th complainant has been examined as PW2. In rebuttal, opposite parties 2 & 3 have filed affidavit as DW1 & DW2 and Exts. D1 to D9 were marked. DW1 & DW2 have been cross examined by the complainant.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainants 1 & 2 sent a money order for Rs.2,500/- to 3rd complainant at 51 D, MIG Complex, Pocket 6, New Kondly, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi on 16/8/2005, that the said money order never reached to the destination, that on getting the said information from the 3rd complainant 1st and 2nd complainants sent another money order for Rs.3,000/- to one Jaya V. Nair, 9-G, Pocket-A-1, Phase III Mayur Vihar, New Delhi on 6/10/2005 and the same also not reached to the destination. It has also been the case of the complainant that when, 1st & 2nd complainants complained to opposite parties 2 & 3 about the non-delivery of the said money orders to the addressee concerned, they refused to give reasonable reply, that thereafter when complained to 1st opposite party, 1st opposite party given a reply to await till the enquiries are made with respect to non-delivery of money orders. It is further submitted by the complainants that instead of taking any action against the officers concerned the 1st opposite party sent a duplicate money order for Rs.2,500/- to the 3rd complainant and the same was received by him under the impression that the said money order was sent by his parents. Ext. P1 is the postal receipt dated 16/8/2005 for Rs.2,500/- being the amount of money order payable to Sri. Sajith, Delhi. Ext. P2 is the postal receipt dated 6/10/2005 for Rs.3,000/- being money order payable to Jaya V. Nair, Mayoor Vihar – 000096. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 27/09/2005 addressed to the Post Master, Kulathoor by the addl. 4th complainant informing him of the non-delivery of the money order for Rs.2,500/- dated 16/08/2005. Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to the Post Master, Kulathoor by the 1st complainant complaining about the non-delivery of the money order for Rs.3,000/- dated 6/10/2005. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to the Post Master General, Office of PMG informing him of the non-receipt of the aforesaid money orders by the addressees. Ext. P6 is the reply to Ext. P5 letter sent by the Assistant Director, Office of the Chief PMG, to the 1st complainant stating that enquiries are being made on alleged non-receipt of money order. Ext. P7 is the order dated 25/11/2005 for issuing duplicate money order for Rs. 2,500/- to addl. 4th complainant issued by Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum. Ext. P8 is the order for issuance of duplicate money order for Rs.3,000/- issued by Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum. Ext. P9 is the letter informing the addl. 4th complainant about payment of duplicate money order for Rs.2,500/- to the payee on 6/12/2005. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the aforesaid two money orders were booked by the 1st and 4th complainants on 16/8/2005 and 6/10/2005, that the money order for Rs. 2,500/- was received back at Kazhakkuttom Post Office on 23/9/2005 with remark that payee was not available in the given address, that on the receipt of the complaint from the addl. 4th complainant, 1st opposite party had ordered to issue duplicate money order vide phone message dated 25/11/2005 and accordingly the same was issued to payee on 28/11/2005 and on 6/12/2005 the payment of the same was effected to the payee. It is further submitted by opposite parties that the money order for Rs.3,000/- booked by the 1st complainant was returned on 21/10/2005 with remark 'Incomplete address' that on receipt of the complaint from the remitter, the Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices had issued sanction for duplicate money order and accordingly the 3rd opposite party issued duplicate money order on 26/11/2005 and the same was paid to the payee on 10/02/2006. It is argued by opposite parties that, money orders were despatched properly without any delay and on receipt of complaints, proper action was taken to issue duplicate money orders according to Provisions and Rules. It is further argued by opposite parties that there are inevitable administrative processes to deal with the complaints with regard to money transactions and for issue of duplicate money orders in order to avoid double payments or wrong payments. It is argued further by opposite parties that they are exempted from liability unless it is proved that any particular employee has committed fraud or willful act with malafide intention and Section 48 of the Post Office Act provides absolute immunity from liability. Ext. D1 is the copy of money order list. Ext. D2 is the copy of the money order form dated 16/8/2005, on the reverse of which, the remark of the Postman concerned is seen recorded in Hindi and English, different dates like 23/8, 24/8, 25/8, 26/8, 27/8 and 29/8 are noted under the word 'Locked'. Ext. D3 is the copy of the phone message dated 25/11/2005 to SSPO's directing to issue DMO to payee. Ext. D4 is the copy of the Ext. P7. Ext. D5 is the copy of the reply letter from Post Master, Delhi to Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum dated 10/01/2006 stating the reason for not effecting the delivery of the aforesaid money orders to payee. Ext. D6 is the copy of money order list dated 6/10/2005. Ext. D7 is the copy of the money order for Rs.3,000/- and Ext. D8 is the copy of the letter from the Sub Post Master, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi to Senior Superintendent, Trivandrum. Evidently by Ext. D2 the money order for Rs. 2,500/- dated 16/9/2005, was not delivered to payee within reasonable time due to payee's residence being locked. The remark of the Postman on the reverse of the Ext. D2 would reveal the efforts made by the Postman for payment of money order on 23/8, 24/8, 25/8, 26/8, 27/8, 29/8 and 30/8/2005. According to opposite parties there are inevitable administrative process to deal with the complainants with regard to money transaction and for issue of duplicate money orders. DMO was issued on 28/11/2005 and payment was effected to the payee on 6/12/2005. As per Ext. D2, the said money order for Rs.2,500/- dated 16/8/2005 is seen sent by addl. 4th complainant. After the impleadment of the addl. 4th complainant, no amendment has been made in the complaint. In effect, PW2 (Additional 4th complainant) filed affidavit without any plea in the complaint. Evidently by Ext. D7, the money order for Rs.3,000/- dated 6/10/2005 was not delivered to payee due to incomplete address of the payee. Thereafter, DMO was sent and payment was effected to payee on 6/12/2005. Complainant has not pleaded allegation of fraud, willful act or default of the Officer of the Post Office. Unless fraud or willful act or default of the Officer of the Post Office is alleged no legal proceedings can be instituted in respect of the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. There is no doubt that the addressee has received money order after delay. Nothing has been mentioned in the complaint that the delay was on account of fraud or willful act or default of any particular Officer of the Post Office. Opposite parties have cited the decision of the National Commission in Tikaram Khanal V. Indian Postal Department III(2003) CPJ 187 (NC), in which it was held that, it would, therefore, appear on the basis of law on this subject the complaint itself was not maintainable. In view of the foregoing discussions and decision of the National Commission and in the light of evidence available on records, we find the Department has protection under Section 48 of the Post Office Act. Complainants have neither pleaded allegation of fraud, willful act or default of any Officer of the Post Office nor proved the same. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of January, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No. 431/2005 APPENDIX 1. Complainants' witness: PW1 : NIL PW2 : Renjith. J II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Postal receipt dated 16/8/2005 P2 : Postal receipt dated 6/10/2005 P3 : Photocopy of the letter dated 27/9/2005 addressed to the 2nd opp. Party. P4 : " of the letter dated 21/10/2005 addressed to the 3rd opposite party. P5 : " letter dated 21/10/2005 addrressed to the 1st opposite party. P6 : True copy of the reply to Ext. P5 letter sent by the Assistant Director, O/o the Chief PMG. P7 : Duplicate money order dated 25/11/2005. P8 : Photocopy of the order for issuance of duplicate money order for Rs. 3,000/-. P9 : Letter dated 2/3/2006 to addl. 4th complainant. P10 : Copy of receipt No. 4512. P11 : True copy of letter sent by NIK Travels Private Ltd dated 3/10/2005. P12 : Acknowledgment Cards. III. Opposite parties witness: DW1 : S. Raveendran DW2 : L. Lalithamma. IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Photocopy of money order list D2 : " the money order form D3 : " phone message dated 25/11/2005. D4 : " duplicate money order dated 25/11/2005. D5 : " reply letter from Post Master, Delhi to Dy. Supdt of Post Offices, Tvpm dated 10/1/2006. D6 : " money order list dated 6/10/2005. D7 : " money order for Rs.3,000/-. D8 : " letter from the Sub Post Master, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi to Senior Supdt., Tvpm. D9 : " Duplicate money order dated 25/11/2005.
PRESIDENT
|
