Date of Filing: 03/11/2014 Date of Final Order: 21/08/2015
The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the record is that the complainant, Debasish Dey sent an e-Money Order (e-MO) of Rs.500/- to his nephew, Roni Paul, Guwahati for education purpose through the O.P. No.1, The Post Master, Nilkuthi Baburhat Sub-Post Office on 22/07/2014. But the EMO did not reach to the nephew still today. After that about 15 days later the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and assured him that the e-MO would be reached very soon, about 20 days later the Complainant again went to the O.P. No.1 and informed him not able to do anything about the said matter, come another day. Lastly the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1, The Post Master about one month later, then the Post Master said after searching his computer that he have to make written complaint about the said fact to the Customer Care at Cooch Behar. When the Complainant asked him why he made complaint to the Customer Care at Cooch Behar why not here, then the Post Master said to the Complainant that he didn't receive any complaint, only the Customer Care at Cooch Behar takes complaint. Asking about the location of the Customer Care, he said it is in the Post Office near the Dip Narayany Bayamagar, Coach Behar. After that about 1 month later, the Complainant went to the Post Office near the Dip Narayany Bayarnagar, Cooch Behar and asking for the Customer Care, one official person said that the Customer Care had been shifted to the Head Post Office, Cooch Behar about 3 months ago. On 05/09/2014 about 45 days later the Complainant went to the Customer Care at Cooch Behar and made the complaint to Refund the e-MO of Rs.500/- plus MO charge. Asking about the complaint the Customer Care personal said that he always could complaint to the Post Office where he made transaction. On 15/09/2014 the Complainant received the acknowledgement of the complaint vide No. 736000-05200, dated 09/09/2014 from the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division. On 20/09/2014 the Complainant received another letter vide No. 736000-05200, dated 11/09/2014 from the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division and said that arrangements were made for duplicate e-MO which would be paid to the payee shortly. But unfortunately no e-MO had been reached to the payee or no refund had been made to the Complainant. The complaint made to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division only to refund the said money, but without refund money a duplicate Money Order was issued to the payee. Therefore, there was negligence, irresponsibility, misguide, harassment, non-co-operation of the O.Ps.
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant finding not any other alternative to get back his said e-MO of Rs.500/-, he filed the instant Case No. DF - 76/2014 with enclosed relevant documents before this Forum and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay Rs.10,000/- for irresponsibility, harassment, non-co-operation of the O.Ps, consuming his personal time & litigation, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, The Post Master, Nilkuthi Baburhat Sub-Post Office, Cooch Behar & the O.P. No.2, The Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division has contested the case by filing their written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the Complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main allegation of the O.Ps is that the Complainant came to Nilkuthi Post Office once after 10/15 days later regarding enquiry of the e-MO and he was informed by the sub-Post Master to lodge a complaint early to the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division, for the settlement of the case and accordingly the Complainant lodged one complaint on 05/09/2014.
It is the case of the O.Ps that just on getting the complaint of the Complainant without causing any delay a web site complaint was lodged by the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division vide No.736000-05200 dated 09/09/2014 and acknowledgement was also sent to the complainant accordingly.
It is the further case of the O.Ps that as per report received from Maligaon Rly HQ MDG through website complaint No. 736000-05200 on 11/09/2014 an order for duplicate money order was issued to the sub Post Master, Nilkuthi Post Office on 11/09/2014 for making payment of the Money Order to the addressee and a letter was also issued to the Complainant vide No. 736000-05200 on 11/09/2014 for his information. As such these O.Ps had no negligence on their part. As per office record of Nilkuthi Post Office, when the duplicate money order returned from Maligaon Rly HQ MDG the same was sent to the Complainant by the sub Post Master, Nilkuthi Post Office for payment but the Complainant refused to take payment on 20/10/2014. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps/Postal Department. Hence no question arises to give compensation to the Complainant.
It has been alleged by the O.Ps in their W/V that as per rule 229 Sec. (V) of post office Guide part-I “The commission will in no case can be refunded” and as per Rule 220 “The post office will not be responsible for the payment of the money order being refused or delayed by or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of an officer of the post office”. Thus the complaint of the Complainant has no leg to stand and the same is liable to be rejected with compensatory costs
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 & 2, prayed for dismissal of the case with compensatory costs.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the Agents of both the parties at a length. Considered the decision cited by the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently the Complainant sent a money order of Rs.500/- to his nephew at his address at Gouhati through the O.P. No.1, Post Master, Nilkuthi, Baburhat post office on payment of commission of Rs.25/-.
So, the Complainant is consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No.1, Post Master has office at Nilkuthi, Baburhat within the Jurisdiction of this Forum and the Complaint value of this case is Rs. 10,500/- i.e. far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has every jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
It is the case of the Complainant, Debasish Dey that he sent an e-Money Order (e-MO) of Rs.500/- to his nephew, Roni Paul, Guwahati for education purpose through the O.P. No.1, The Post Master, Nilkuthi Baburhat Sub-Post Office on 22/07/2014.
Copy of Money Receipt dated 22/07/2014 shows that Rs.500/- was sent to Roni Paul of Maligaon through money order on payment of commission of Rs.25/-. The O.Ps did not deny said receipt.
It is the further case of the Complainant that the said EMO did not reach to the nephew still today. After that about 15 days later the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and assured him that the e-MO would be reached very soon, about 20 days later the Complainant again went to the O.P. No.1 and informed him not able to do anything about the said matter, come another day. Lastly on 05/09/2014 about 45 days later the Complainant went to the Customer Care at Cooch Behar and made the complaint to Refund the e-MO of Rs.500/- plus MO charge. On 20/09/2014 the Complainant received another letter vide No. 736000-05200, dated 11/09/2014 from the Superintendent of Post Office, Cooch Behar Division and said that arrangements were made for duplicate e-MO which would be paid to the payee shortly.
Copy of the letter dated 05/09/2014 addressed to the Superintendent of Cooch Behar Post Office shows that the Complainant has filed the said complaint alleging that money order of Rs.500/- sent on 22/07/2014 has not been received to the addressee.
Copy of the letter dated 09/09/2014 reveals that the said complaint was received by the O.P. No.1.
Copy of the duplicate money order dated 11/09/2014 shows that the O.P. No.1 assured the Complainant that arrangements are therefore being made to issue D.M.O which be paid to the payee shortly.
It is the further case of the Complainant that his e-MO had not been reached to the payee and no refund had been made to the Complainant and without refunding the money the O.P. No.1 issued duplicate money order to him and thereby committed negligence, harassment and deficiency in service.
So, it is clear from the above discussed documents that e-MO of Rs.500/- sent to one Roni Paul and it is the specific case of the Complainant that the said money had not been refunded to him by the O.Ps as yet.
On the other hand in his written version and evidence the O.Ps stated that just on getting the complaint of the Complainant without causing any delay a web site complaint was lodged by the Superintendent of post offices, Cooch Behar Division vide no.736000-05200 dated 09/09/2014 and acknowledgement was also sent to the Complainant accordingly.
It is the further case of the O.Ps that as per report received from Maligaon Rly. HQ MDG through website complaint No.736000-05200 on 11/09/2014 an order for duplicate money order was issued to the sub Post Master, Nilkuthi Post Office on 11/09/2014 for making payment of the money order to the addressee.
It is the next case of the O.Ps that as per office record of Nilkuthi Post office, when the duplicate money order returned from Maligaon Rly HQ MDG the same was sent to the remitter (i.e. the Complainant) by the Sub-Post Master, Nilkuthi Post Office for payment but the Complainant refused to take payment on 20/10/2014. So, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Copy of the duplicate money order reveals that Rs.500/- was sent by money order to one Roni Paul at his address Maligaon by the Complainant, Debasish Dey. Said duplicate money order further shows that said money order was not delivered due to insufficient address and lastly said money was sent back to the Complainant for refund.
But endorsement of one B. Roy reveals that the Complainant refused to receive Rs.500/- as refund of money order sent by him.
By filing evidence on affidavit the O.Ps have claimed that the Complainant refused to receive back the money, sent by him through money order.
The Complainant has not filed any affidavit denying such allegation.
In view of ruling reported in IV 2006 CPJ 213 (NC) in such case it can be said that case of the O.Ps has been established. In the said case, where in a complaint case the Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of evidence nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the Complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit, case of the Complainant stands proved.
More so, in view of 114 (g) Evidence Act Judicial and Official Acts have been presumed to regularly performed.
So, it appear from our above made discussion that on 20/10/2014 the Complainant refused to take back money sent by him through money order and he filed the present case on 03/11/2014 alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps. So, it can be safely conclude that the Complainant has not came to Forum in clean hand.
At the end of the argument, the Ld. Adv./Agent of the Complainant submitted a copy of judgement passed in FA No.241/07 by Hon’ble State Commission, Chennai. In the said case, the Complainant had sent a sum of Rs.500/- on 27/02/2004 through the 1st O.P post office, by money order, from Nagapattinam to one Asiya Abubacker, a person living at Kerala. Even after, many months had passed no acknowledgement was received, enquiry also failed, to bring to surface the whereabouts of the amount, whether paid or not. Finally, a letter was addressed, that also failed to get back the money order. The District Forum allowed the complaint case and on appeal Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to allow the Appeal in part and directed the post office to refund Rs.500/- i.e. money sent by money order and pay costs of Rs.1000/- and other order of the District Forum was set aside.
But we think that said ruling is not applicable in this case as in the present case the O.P, post office made attempt to refund the money sent through money order but the Complainant refused to receive back the same.
Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record we constrained to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Thus, these points are decided against the Complainant and accordingly the case fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. DF/76/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the Complainant, Debasish Dey to the O.Ps.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
