(Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant against the order passed by the District Forum Mumbai in Complaint No. 110/2001 decided on 01/06/2004.
(2) This appeal is lying unattended from 2004. The appellant also has not bothered to take circulation for getting first order passed. Therefore, on 04/08/2011, this matter was taken from sine-die list and placed before us for disposal. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet Board of the Commission. Today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we are deciding the matter on merit. We are finding that the appellant had sent `2,000/- to his brother, B.R.Chaudhary by Telegram Money Order (TMO) on 25/10/2000 through GPO, Mumbai. The said TMO was not received by the addressee within reasonable time. So, the complainant made enquiry with the postal authorities, they assured to make enquiry and to revert back to him. They had not told the complainant what had happened with his TMO. The complainant sent legal notice dated 01/01/2001 and 23/02/2001. After waiting for four months, the complainant got reply that still the opponents were making the necessary enquiries. Hence, due to non-response by the postal authorities, the complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service.
(3) The opponent filed written version and denied the deficiency in service on their part. The opponent admitted that the TMO was sent, but was not received by his brother in time, but it is contended that on the receiving the complaint from the complainant, immediately the necessary steps were taken by the department and subsequently duplicate TMO was issued to the SPM Semaria Post Office, native place where TMO was sent by complainant and the said amount was paid to the addressee. They denied that they had not taken any action on the notice and complaints made by the complainant. According to the opponent, in terms of provisions u/s. 6 and 33 of Indian Post Office Act 1898, the government is not liable for any compensation for any loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage arising while sending articles through post, unless the complainant proves that there was willful act or default on the part of the post authorities or any fraud has been committed. Therefore, the opponent prayed to dismiss the complaint.
(4) on considering documents and affidavits, the District Forum held that as there is no allegation of any fraud or willful act or default on the part of postal authorities, there is no substance in the complaint lodged by the complainant in as much as TMO sent by the complainant was ultimately delivered to the brother of the complainant, the addressee of the TMO at his residence. The forum below, therefore, was pleased to dismiss the complaint. We found that the order passed by the forum below is just and proper and sustainable in law. U/s.6 of the Post Office Act, 1898, the government is not liable for loss, mis-delivery, non-delivery or delayed delivery of the postal article. The said exemption is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Moreover, the said amount of TMO was delivered by the opponent to the addressee i.e. the brother of the complainant. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 28th September, 2011.
