Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/37/2013

M.S.Venkata Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master General. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   03.10.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 37 /2013

THURSDAY THIS  15^TH   DAY OF JUNE 2017

Mr. M.S. Venkata Narayanan,

S/o. Sri M.A.Subramaniam,

No.5, 5^th Street,  Rajarajeswari Apts,

Ram Nagar, Nanganallur,

Chennai 600 061.                                           .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1.  The Post Master General,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai City South Division,

Chennai 600 017.                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi & another     

Counsel for opposite parties    :    M/s. S.Chandrasekharan  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to give the receipt that the said money order amount of Rs.3000/- has been received by the addressee and also to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  On 8.4.2012 he sent a sum of Rs.3,000/- by Money Order to one of his relative namely Mr.Ravi Chandran at Secundrabad through Nanganallore Post office.    The said amount sent for marriage purpose at Secundrabad.  But it was not received by Mr. Ravi Chandran at Secundrabad.   The said money order was not delivered in time and thereby the complainant went to Nanganallore Post office and enquired on 29.5.2012.   Since the opposite parties official has not given proper answer,  the complainant gave a written complaint on the same day.  The 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to send the duplicate Money order on 4.7.2012.   The same was done by the complainant and submitted on 8.7.2012 stating that the money order payable to the payee at Secundrabad.    The complainant further states that the 2^nd opposite party sent another letter dated 19.7.2012 stating that the above money order has been delivered on 17.7.2012.     As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service which caused mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the 2nd opposite party  and adopted by the 1^st opposite party are as follows:

The opposite parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the remaining allegations.   The opposite parties submit that the complaint ought to have been dismissed for the non joinder of necessary party  the Sub Postmaster, Nanganallur.  It is a fact that the complainant sent one ordinary money under No.A186 on 18.4.2012 for Rs.3000/- payable to Sri. Ravichandran of Secundrabad.    The averment that complainant had lodged complaint on 29.5.2012 is not true.    The opposite parties also state that the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party office and Nanganallur Post Office to trace out the complaint was not true.   The complaint was duly registered over phone itself and swift action was taken for issue of a duplicate money order which was sent to Bowenpally PO vide RL NO.RT0490634341N on 11.7.2012.  As the said money order has not been received at Bowenpally PO, the duplicate money order was paid to the payee at Secundrabad on 17.7.2012.  The 2^nd opposite party states that on 4.7.2012 orders were issued to the Nanganallur Post Office for issuance of Duplicate Money order after obtaining declaration from the complainant on 8.7.2012.  The sanction was accorded for issuance of duplicate money order on 9.7.2012.  The date of payment also was intimated to the complainant on 19.7.2012 by the office of the 2^nd opposite party.      Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to  Ex.B5 marked on the side of the opposite parties and oral arguments let in.  

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled the acknowledgment for the money order amount of Rs.3000/- as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards cost as prayed for ?

 

 

5. POINT No. 1  & 2:  

 

       The learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 8.4.2012 he sent a money order of Rs.3,000/- to his relative one Mr. Ravi Chandran at Secundrabad through Nanganallore Post office.  The said money order was not delivered in time and thereby the complainant went to Nanganallore Post office and made enquired on 29.5.2012.   Since the opposite parties officials has not given proper answer, the complainant issued notice.  Thereafter the complainant entered his grievance in complaint register as per the instruction of the opposite parties.   On 4.7.2012 the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to give a duplicate money order.  Thereafter on 17.7.2012 the said money order amount of Rs.3,000/- has been delivered to the proper person at Secundrabad.   Hence it is very clear that the said money order has been delivered after inordinate delay of nearly 99 days.

 

6.     The learned counsel for the complainant further  contended that even after delivery of the money order on the basis of duplicate money order the complainant was not issued the duly signed acknowledgment.  Which is the only record for the due delivery of Money order.  But in this case, both parties admitted the due delivery of money order.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the Postmaster of  Nanganallore is not a necessary party, since his higher official were duly added as a party.

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that this complaint is not maintainable, since the complainant not added the real party the Nanganallore Postmaster; wherein admittedly the money order was booked.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the money order was duly delivered at Secundrabad whose postmaster also not added as a party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the cause of action arose either at Nanganallore or at Secundrabad.  The complainant deliberately omitted the post office having cause of action not added as a party amounts to non joinder of necessary party is not acceptable because the complainant duly added the higher officials of Nanganallore postmaster wherein money order was booked having office at Chennai within the jurisdiction to this Hon’ble Forum.  Further the action was initiated by the opposite parties with regard to the non delivery of money order is rightly added as parties.   Hence the non joinder of postmaster Nanganallore and Secundrabad postmaster shall not vitiate the proceedings and they are not vital  parties to this case.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the claim of receipt by the complainant after knowing fully well that the money order has been duly delivered is a luxury.  The complainant has not pleaded and proved the necessity of the acknowledgment after knowing that the money order was duly delivered.  

 

8.     The learned counsel for the complainant contended that he sent a money order of Rs.3,000/- on 8.4.2012 through Nanganallore Post Office to one Mr. Ravi Chandran of Secundrabad towards marriage purpose.   When the complainant was on the impression that the money order was received at Secundrabad and there was no response from his relative and on hearing that the money order was not received by his relative approached the postmaster, Nanganallore on 29.5.2012.  On the instruction of the postmaster, Nanganallore  the complainant gave a  written complaint and collected a telephone number of customer care.  Thereafter the complainant while contacting through customer care number he was informed to send a duplicate money order  and was duly complied  on 4.7.2017.  Accordingly the said amount of Rs.3,000/- was duly delivered on 17.7.2012 after inordinate delay of  99 days.  Since the money order was not delivered in proper time and there was no proper answer on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant was put to great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards such mental agony and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint.   But the complainant   has   not   pleaded  and  explained  for such  huge  amount  of Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony.  The manner of mental agony also not explained in this case.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the money order was duly delivered after obtaining the duplicate money order is admitted.   The claim towards mental agony is imaginary and exorbitant.    

 

9.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that   As per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898  the case before this forum is unsustainable.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties cited a decision reported in Revision Petition No.986 / 1996 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 

 

       But on a careful perusal of the entire facts it is apparently clear that the money order was delivered after inordinate delay of 99 days.  The opposite parties have not explained the reason for such inordinate delay  

As per decision reported in

 

2014 (1) CPR 610 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Union of India, Through the Secretary & Ors.

..Vs..

George Mathew & Ors.

 

The Post office also coming under the Consumer Act and the deficiency shall be duly compensated.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the compensation of Rs.75,000/- claimed towards mental agony is imaginary and exorbitant.  There is no iota of evidence to prove such great mental agony to tune of Rs.75,000/-.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the complaint and point is answered accordingly.

 

In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay as compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant.  

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  15^th   day  of  June 2017.   

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 8.4.2012    - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party-1.

Ex.A2- 8.7.2012    - Copy of letter by complainant.

Ex.A3- 4.7.2012    - Copy of letter by opposite party-2.

Ex.A4- 9.7.2012    - Copy of Duplicate M.O.

Ex.A5- 19.7.2012  - Copy of letter by opposite party to complainant.

Ex.A6- 4.9.2012    - Copy of legal notice to opposite parties.

Ex.A7- 13.9.2012  - Copy of reply by 2^nd opposite party.

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-  10.7.2012 - Copy of Duplicate money order.

Ex.B2- 19.7.2012  - Copy of intimation of payment to the complainant.

Ex.B3- 20.9.2014  - Copy of reply to the complainant notice.

Ex.B4-         -       - Copy of Indian Post Office Act 1898.

Ex.B5-         -       - Copy of Order in R.P.No.986 of 1996.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.