DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 32 OF 2022

                                                              Date of Filing: 08.08.2022

                                                              Date of Order: 01.05.2023

Sri Priyabrata Sahu,

S/O Nabin Chandra Sahu,

AT- Kumbha Bazar,

PO- Ratanga, PS- Daringbadi,

Dist- Kandhamal.                                         ……………….. Complainant.

Versus.

The Post Master,

Sub-Post Office, Daringbadi,

PO/PS- Daringbadi,

DIST- Kandhamal.                                        …………………..OPP. Party.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra        - President.

               Sri Sudhakar Senapothi                      - Member.

For the Complainant:      Self

For O.P:                         Expatee

 JUDGEMENT

Sri Sudhakar Senapothi, Member 

          Complainant Priyabrata Sahu has filed this case U/S 35 of the CP Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. for not delivering the money despatched through electronic money order system and praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 300000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- towards cost of litigation.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner had despatched a sum of Rs. 470/- through electronic money order from Ashok Nagar Post Office, Bhubaneswar to be delivered to IIC, Daringbadi on 18.04.2022. The Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs. 24/- towards money order charges. The complainant had sought for certain information from PIO, Daringbadi Police Station under provisions of RTI Act and was instructed by the PIO to deposit a sum of Rs. 470/- towards the cost of the information. On 09.05.2022, he received intimation from PIO, Daringbadi that his application has been rejected as the required fee was not paid. On receiving this information, the petitioner followed the postal tracking system and it was revealed that the money order has reached Daringbadi Post Office on 19.04.2022 and after remaining there for 15 days, the money was taken for delivery to Daringbadi Police Station on 04.05.2022. On 20.05.2022, the complainant sent an application to enquire that when the tracking system of Daringbadi Post Office shows the payment of money order, under what circumstances, the PIO, Daringbadi PS denied to have received the Money Order. On receiving the application on 21.05.2022, a sum of Rs. 470/- was returned to him. As the Opposite Party did not deliver the money order in time, he could not get the information and because of the negligence of Opposite Party, he suffered a lot.
2. Upon notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed his written version. In his written version, it is stated that the electronic money order bearing No. 084313502686922020 was booked at Ashok Nagar Post Office by Shri Priyabrata Sahu on 18.04.2022 to be delivered to IIC, Daringbadi Police Station amounting to Rs. 470/- and the EMO Commission is Rs. 24/-. The EMO was received at Daringbadi Sub Office and the EMO could not be viewed and printed due to link problem at Daringbadi Sub Office. After restoration of link, the EMO was printed on 04.05.2022 in Daringbadi and the delivery staff attempted for payment to IIC, Daringbadi Police Station on the same day. But, the IIC refused to receive the EMO and it was returned to the remitter on 04.05.2022. It is further, stated that the network problem is prevailing in most of the area of Daringbadi, Baliguda area of Kandhamal District which is beyond control of the department. SPM, Daringbadi SO has acted as per rule 103 of Postal Manual Vol.6 Part-III, there is some exception from liability U/S 48 of Indian Post Office Act 1898. As the Opposite Party has acted as per the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and the other reasons cited above, there is no deficiency on his part and he prayed for dismissal of the case.
3. The complainant in support of the case, has filed a copy of the letter received from PIO, Daringbadi PS on 05.05.2022, Postal Track Report showing event details of the EMO, copy of the money receipt showing dispatch of the EMO, copy of the application dt. 20.05.2022 of the complainant addressed to Post Master, Daringbadi, copy of the letter dt. 08.05.2022 issued by citizen information at Legal Aid Centre, Cuttack, copy of the ABLAPL No. 1174, copy of the money receipt of Athithi Bhawan, copy of the call details of the complainant with Post Master, Daringbadi SO on 01.05.2022, one pen drive containing the conversation dt. 21.05.2022 at 2.51 p.m. and at 00.44 p.m. The complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
4. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has filed copy of the payment receipt showing payment of Rs. 470/- to Priyabrata Sahu, copy of the postal tracking system, copy of the letter issued by Sub-Post Master, Daringbadi SPO to the Superintendent of Post Office, Phulbani, Xerox copy of Rule-97, 98, 99 and 100 containing 3 pages.
5. In the face of pleadings and counter pleading of the parties, the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the Opposite Party could not deliver the EMO due to circumstances beyond his control in the right time ?
2. Whether the money has been returned to the complainant on 04.05.2022 or 21.05.2022 ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or not on the part of the Opposite Party ?
4. To what relief the Opposite Party is entitled ?

6. The first and foremost issue relating to the cases is whether the Opposite Party could not deliver the EMO due to reasons beyond his control?

It is alleged by the complainant that the EMO was received by Daringbadi Sub-Post Office on 19.04.2022 and after remaining there for 15 days, the money was delivered to Daringbadi Police Station on 04.05.2022. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has stated that the amount was received on 19.04.2022. But due to link failure the EMO was printed on 04.05.2022 after restoration of link and the Post Peon attempted to deliver the amount to IIC, Daringbadi PS and as he refused to receive the EMO, it was returned back to remitter.

This Commission in order to ascertain the link failure in Daringbadi SPO had sought for a report from AGM, BSNL, Kandhamal, Phulbani. The AGM, BSNL, Phulbani in his report stated that the Post Master had registered his complain on two occasions which were attempted within reasonable time on the same day. It is seen from report that on 19.04.2022, there was link failure for few minutes and subsequently till 04.05.2022 even though there was link failure, the highest link failure during this period was for 20 minutes only. During this period from 19.04.2022 to 04.05.2022, the Post Master had registered only two complaints on two occasions which were attempted within a reasonable time on the same day. So, the plea of the Opposite Party that there was link failure from 19.04.2022 to 04.05.2022 is a blatant lie and the Opposite Party has resorted to complete falsehood to cover up his mistake. It is clear from the report of AGM, BSNL, Phulbani that the plea taken by the Opposite Party is completely baseless and is intended to suppress the truth and his negligence in duty. So, the plea of the Opposite Party on this score is unacceptable and the O.P has failed to dischange his duty properly which is an act of sheen negligence on his part and the story of link failure has been planted to escape from the clutches of low.

7. The next issue relating to this case is whether after refusal by the IIC, Daringbadi Police Station to receive the EMO of Rs. 470/- was returned back to the remitter Priyabrata Sahu on the same day or not?

It is alleged by the complainant that on 20.05.2022, he submitted an application to the Post Master, Sub-Post Office, Daringbadi to enquire when the postal tracking system shows delivery of the amount, how IIC, Daringbadi had intimated him that his application on RTI has been rejected due to non-payment of required fee. After receiving the application on 21.05.2022, the amount was returned to him. On the other hand, the Opposite Party stated that the Money Order amount i.e., 470/- was returned to the remitter on the same day after the refusal by IIC, Daringbadi PS to accept the EMO. The Opposite Party has filed the copy of acknowledgement showing payment of Rs. 470/- on 04.05.2022. The complaint in his evidence filed by way of affidavit has stated that on 21.05.2022, the Post Master had telephoned him on two occasions at 2.45 pm and 2.54 pm from his mobile No. 7827037856 wherein, he requested the complainant to receive the amount. The complainant has filed the copy of conversation between them and copy of the phone details of the service provider which clearly reveals that the Post Master had telephoned the complainant at about 2.45 p.m. on 21.05.2022 and again at 2.54 p.m. to receive the money which was sent to IIC, Daringbadi PS by EMO. The Opposite Party has not raised any objection to this part of the evidence led by the complainant. So, the evidence of the complainant stands uncontroverted.  Even though it has been mentioned in the acknowledgement, the date of delivery to be 04.05.2022, the evidence of the complainant goes against it. The complainant has specifically mentioned in his evidence that he has not mentioned any date and has only put his signature in the acknowledgement form and taking advantage of the situation; the Post Master has mentioned the date as 04.05.2022. This part of the evidence is also not challenged by the Opposite Party and this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

8. The next issue is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or not?

It is crystal clear from the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs that the Opposite Party neglected in delivering the EMO to the IIC, Daringbadi PS even though it was received by him on 19.04.2022 and was attempted to be delivered after a long gap of 15 days and the negligence is willful in nature and the Opposite Party has deliberately and willfully caused delay which amounts to deficiency in service there by causing harassment to the complainant.

9. Now the question is to what relief the complainant is entitled?

From the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, it is very much clear that the Opposite Party has caused deficiency in service leading to harassment and is liable to compensate the complainant for loss and harassment suffered by him and hence the order.

O  R  D  E  R

          The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the petitioner. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for the loss and harassment caused to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order, failing which it will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is complied.

                                                         Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commission today on this 1^st day of May 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER