SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The complaint is filed against the Postal Department for deficiency in service for the delay in payment of money order. <br /> <br /> Complainant's daughter completed her Nursing study and is working as an apprentice in Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital at Bangalore. Because she is working as an apprentice, no remuneration is paying from the hospital. So the complainant sent Rs.1,500/- as money order to his daughter on 20.12.2006 for her day-to-day expenses including food and accommodation in the address JOSY.V.V, STAFF NURSE, NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA NURSES HOSTEL, ROOM NO.5, KEERTHI LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA P.O, BANGALORE – 99, ANAKAL ROAD, KARNATAKA STATE. The said money order was not served by the postal department. Complainant's daughter telephoned to the complainant that she was not even getting daily food because of the scarcity of money. The complainant made several complaints to the Postal Department. After that on 17/01/2007 the complainant himself went to Bangalore with a Kannada translator, because the complainant was an illetrate, to see his daughter. On 18.01.2007 they reached Bangalore, disbursed money to his daughter, and came back in the next day. Complainant made a complaint through Consumer Association, Rajakkadu to the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. The opposite party disbursed the money order only after 43 days. Hence the complaint is filed for getting compensation for his journey expenses, mental agony and sufferings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it is admitted that the complainant booked a money order for Rs.1,500/- from Rajakkadu South Post Office on 20.12.2006 to the payee in the address specified by the complainant. Money Orders booked at branch post offices are rebooked at the respective account office. As such the money order under reference was re-booked at Santhanpara Sub Post Office, which is the account office of Rajakumari South Branch Post Office vide receipt number 4624 on 20.12.2006. The money order was despatched from Santhanpara Post Office on the same day. A complaint letter without any date was received by the opposite party on 8.01.2007 alleging non-payment of the money order. Immediately on receipt of the complaint it was registered in the Customer Care Centre, Idukki Division website vide outward complaint number 685000-01838 on 9.01.2007 with destination office as Chandapura under Bangalore South Divisional Office. After making necessary entries relating to the money order by the Customer Care Centre of Bangalore South Postal Division, it was informed on 19.01.2007 that the money order under reference was not received at the paying office. As the money order was not received at the destination it was presumed that it would have been lost in transit. If a money order is lost in transit the immediate remedial step to be taken was issuing a duplicate money order. So order for issuing a duplicate money order to the payee was issued to the Sub Postmaster, Santhanpara by opposite party No.2 on 22.01.2007. The Sub Postmaster, Santhanpara issued the duplicate money order No.4624 on 25.01.2007 and sent it to the destination by registered post. It was intimated by Extra Departmental Sub Postmaster, Chandapura that the duplicate money order was paid on 3.02.2007. The contention of the complainant that it was informed by the 2nd opposite party on 30.01.2007 that instruction had been given for sending telegram money order is not correct. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 clearly lays down that the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery, or delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. Except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central government and an officer of the post office shall not incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In the present case, the delay is not caused by any willful act or default of any officer or postal department. Section 48(c) of Indian Post Office Act clearly lays down that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the post office in respect of the payment of any money order delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake on the part of an officer of the post office or for any other cause whatsoever other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer. The complainant has not submitted any willful act or fraud on the part of any of the officers or officials of the opposite party. It is well settled that there is no allegation of fraud against any of the officers of the postal department they are absolved from liability under Section 6 of the Post Office Act 1991(1)(CPR). Moreover, prompt action was taken to issue duplicate money order as prescribed in the rules and when intimation regarding non-payment of the money order was received. So there was no deficiency in the part of the opposite parties and the petition may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complainant’s daughter was working as an apprentice in a private hospital at Bangalore. The complainant is sending money for her day-today expenses because she is not getting any remuneration from the hospital. On 20.12.2006 the complainant sent Rs.1,500/- to his daughter as money order. But the same was not reached there in time. After several complaints he himself went over there at Bangalore with a translator and disbursed the money to his daughter. Ext.P1 is the receipt for the money order sent by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the reply notice received from the opposite party for the receipt of the complaint. Ext.P3(series) is the tickets and the hotel receipt paid by the complainant for the journey to Bangalore. Ext.P4 is the letter issued to the opposite party through Consumer Association. Ext.P5 is the reply notice issued the 2nd opposite party. As per PW1, the money order was reached there after 43 days. Opposite party in the written version admitted that there is a delay in the payment of money order.Ext.R1 is the original complaint given by PW1 to the 2nd opposite party is also proves the same. Ext.R2 is the letter addressed to Manager, Customer Care Centre, Idukki by the 2nd opposite party for issuing a duplicate money order. It also supports the evidence of PW1. Ext.R3 is the photocopy of the endorsement from Chandapura Post Office stating the money order is disbursed on 3.02.2007. The evidence of the opposite party also proves the case of PW1. The contention of the opposite party is that as per Section 48(c) of Indian Post Office Act clearly lays down that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of, the payment of any money order delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake on the part of an officer of the Post Office, or for any other course whatsoever, other than fraud or willful act or default of such officer. The opposite party is not liable as per the Section 6 of the Post Office Act. The complainant submitted that only because of the shadow of this act, the opposite party willfully made delay in the payment of money order. There is no explanation from opposite party that how the money order is lost from the opposite party. If money order of more than 400 rupees is transferred to anywhere it should be reported in each station which it passes. It is admitted by the opposite party also. But there is only report from Santhanpara Station that the money order has been sent. There is no report in any other station. The opposite party never tried to find out the reason for the lost of money order or from where it lost. They only tried to issue a duplicate one. That is for protecting the opposite party in the shadow of the Act. So if any willful act or fraud is committed from the part of any staff or opposite party cannot be detected. The ordinary lay man is suffering from the same. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The opposite party never challenged exhibits P1 to P6 produced by the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. The complainant’s daughter who is in other State, suffered a lot because of the non-payment of money. Complainant also caused mental agony by this. So we think it is fit to award a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for the expenses incurred by the complainant for the long journey to Bangalore. Rs.4,000/- can be awarded for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant and his daughter for the non-payment of money order and Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition.<br /> As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the complainant as compensation for long delay in disbursing the money order and Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008<br /> <br />