West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/118/2017

Sri Gourpada Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Postal Superintendent - Opp.Party(s)

Kuhu Chatterjee

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

 

Complaint Case No.118/2017

                  Sri Gour Pada Maity S/o-Lt. Atul Chandra Maity, Vill.Hosenpur, P.O. Bakhrabad,

                  P.S. Belda, Dist. Paschim Medinipur ,Pin-721424.

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1.The Postal Superintendent, Midnapore Division, P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali,

    Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

2.The Postmaster, Judsges’ Court Post Office, P.O.Midnapore, P.S.Kotwali,

    Dist. Paschim Medinipur ,Pin-721101.

3.The Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division, Contai, 

          Dist. Purba Medinipur. 

                                                                                                        ………..Opposite Parties.                                                                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mrs. Kuhu Chatterjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr.Sukumar Paria, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                         Date of filing:25/07/2017                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                          Decided on: - 04/05/2018

                                

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Gour Pada Maity alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. named above.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                On 13.12.2016, the complainant sent a money order of Rs.800/- in favour of  Tapati Maity of Vill. Nazargunj (Amtala Ghat), P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.

Contd………P/2

 

                                           

                                                                                ( 2 )

Paschim Medinipur from Medinipur Judges’ Court Post Office vide S.D. no.721101 eMOPMR NO.14085916121300.  Said payee did not receive the money order till date and the amount of Rs.800/- also did not return back to the complainant as yet.  Complainant therefore went to the office of O.P. no.2 on several times to know the fate of the money order but the O.P. no.2 did not give any satisfactory answer.  Complainant thereafter made petition before the Postmaster, Belda, Paschim Medinipur by registered post with A.D. on 18/02/2017 but the said post office also did not give any reply.  Complainant thereafter submitted a petition under R.I. Act on 29/04/2017 before the Postal Superintendent, Medinipur Division and received a reply dated 26/05/2017 of the said R.T.I and it was informed that the money order was redirected by Medinipur Head Office to Belda Post Office of 13/12/2017.  Thereafter O.P. no.3 issued a letter to the complainant stating that the said money order was not received at Belda. Due to non- delivery of the said money order, the complainant has suffered a lot.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.Ps to pay Rs.800/- along with demurrage of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and for an order of compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost.

   All the three O.Ps have contested this case by filing a joint W/V. 

   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant it is the specific case of the O.Ps that the money order was received by Medinipur Head Post Office electronically on 15/12/2016 and the same was sent out for payment on 16/12/2016.  It was redirected to the complainant for payment on 16/12/2016 electronically to Belda Post Office as the payee of the money order refused to accept the same.  Belda Post office directed it’s sub-post office at Bakhrabad Branch Post Office to return the value of the money order to the sender but due to non co-operation of the complainant, the delivery man of the concerned post office failed to return the value of the money order to the complainant.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as the payee of the money order refused to accept the same and the complainant/remitter avoided receipt of return the remitted amount of money order.  O.Ps. therefore  claim dismissal of the case with cost.

  To prove his case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and the documents relied upon by the complainant have been marked as exbt.1 to 8 respectively. 

  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined one witness namely Sri Ekesh Kumar, the Inspector of Posts (Public Grievance), Medinipur Division as O.P.W-1 and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exbt- A to E respectively.        

Contd………P/3

 

 

                                                                                 ( 3 )                                                                  

                                                                  Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons  

             Point no.1:-

      Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by the O.Ps at the time of final hearing of this case.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, we do not find anything adverse regarding maintainability of this case.  

     This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

            Point no.2:-

     Admittedly, the  complainant Gour Pada Maity sent a money order of Rs.800/- in favour of one Tapati Maity of village -Nazargunj (Amtala Ghat), P.O. Medinipur   P.S.Kotwali, District Paschim Medinipur on 13/12/2016 from Medinipur Judges’Court Post Office.  Admittedly the said payee did not receive the said money order.  According to the O.Ps, the payee Tapati Maity refused to accept the money order.  Further according to the O.Ps when the complainant made correspondence with them, then Belda Post office was directed to refund the amount of the money order to the sender but the postal peon failed to effect the payment of the money order value to the complainant due to his non-co-operation.  In support of their said case, the O.Ps have relied upon a document (Exbt.D) wherefrom it appears that the postal peon went to the house of the complainant on three occasions for giving delivery of the value of the money order but the complainant was always found absent in his house.  In his cross-examination, OPW-1 Ekesh Kumar has stated that postal peon of Belda P.S. went to the house of the complainant for making  the delivery of money order on 2^nd August 2017, 5^th August 2017,and 8^th August 2017. To prove their said case, the O.Ps. have not examined the concerned postal peon to say and to prove that he at all went to the house of the complainant on those days for the aforesaid purpose. Even if, we consider it to be true that the concerned delivery man of the Belda P.O. went to the house of the complainant on those three days for making delivery of the value of the money order, in that case also the O.Ps. cannot be said to be diligent in making return of the refused money order to the complainant as because the money order was sent on 13.12.2016 and according to the O.Ps.  they admittedly sent their delivery man to return the value of the money order to the complainant after lapse of about 8 months from the date of alleged refusal by the payee. This

Contd………P/4

 

 

                                                                              ( 4 )

inordinate delay in making alleged attempt in returning the value of the money order to the complainant is a sheer negligence on the part of the O.Ps. and it amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part.

      This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

           Point no.3:-

 In view of our above findings under point no.2, the complainant is  entitled to get return of the value of the money order along with  interest, compensation and litigation cost.

                        All the points are accordingly disposed of.

 In the result, the complaint case succeed.

                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                  Ordered,

                             that the complaint case no.118/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.Ps. O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.800/- to the complainant with simple interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till payment. O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

                                    All such payments shall be made within a month from this date of order i.d.

               8% interest p.a. shall carry over the awarded amount.      

                                    Let copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

               Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                      Sd/-P.K. Singha                             Sd/-B. Pramanik.                     

                             President.                                  Member                                         President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur