SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed against the Postal Department, Thodupuzha for their deficiency in serving speed post money order.

The complainant is a Govt.servant. He booked a speed post money order for Rs.400/- in Head Post Office, Thodupuzha on 7.04.2008. The addressee was one Mr.S.Warshal, Sathur P.O, Viruthanagar, Tamilnadu. At the time of sending the money order the complainant enquired the Postmaster, Thodupuzha about the time of disbursing the money to the addressee. The Postmaster, Head Post Office, Thodupuzha assured the complainant that if a speed post money order is send, it will reach on the second day to the addressed person. As per the assurance of the Ist opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.432/- to the Ist opposite party's office. The ordinary charge for the money order was Rs.20/- for 400 rupees and Rs.12/- is charged as extra money for the speed post service charge. The money order was neither received on the second day nor on the very next day. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.12/- which is for the speed post charge and it was not reached as per the assurance of the Ist opposite party. The money order sent by the complainant was for a very necessary need of the addressee and so the complainant caused mental agony by the delay of this money order and hence the complaint is filed for compensation under various heads.

2. The opposite party appeared and filed written version and they admitted that the complainant booked a speed post money order for Rs.400/- to the addressee named one Mr.S.Warshal, Sathur P.O, Viruthanagar, Tamilnadu from the Thodupuzha Head Post Office, it was not paid to the payee Mr.S.Warshal on the next day or the subsequent day. The money order was booked on 7.04.2008 and it was despatched to Thodupuzha sorting office on 7.04.2008 itself duly entered in the concerned list as Sl.No.58/59. Speed post money orders are sending to Thodupuzha sorting office first and from there to the destination through various transit offices. The speed post money order was reached at Sathur Post Office on 10.04.2008 and it was paid to the payee on the same day itself. It is not possible to convey speed post articles to Sathur by aircrafts as done in the case of speed particles to important cities. Here the only normal transit time was taken for reaching the money order at the destination and so no delay was caused in this case. The opposite party never assured the complainant that the money order will reach on the very next day or the subsequent day. No complaint was filed by the complainant to the Postal Department. The place of the addressee was a remote place in Tamil Nadu. The money was paid to the payee on 10.04.2008 itself. Moreover, 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, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liabilities may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government or an officer of the Post Office shall not incur any liabilities by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damages unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. In the present case, the delay if any was not caused by any willful act or default of an officer of the Postal Department. Under Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act clearly lays down that no suit or legal proceeding shall be instituted against Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of the payment of any money order delayed 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. It is submitted that the complainant has not alleged any willful act or fraud on the part of any officers of the opposite parties. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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 ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1.

5. The POINT :- The speed post money order for Rs.400/- sent by the complainant from Thodupuzha Head Post Office on 7.04.2008 was not paid to the addressee Sri.S.Warshal, Sathur, Virudhanagar District, TamilNadu on the next day or subsequent day as promised by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the bill issued by the opposite party at the time of sending the same. These facts are admitted by the opposite party. The complainant who is PW1 deposed that the money order was sent for the purpose of the treatment of the said Warshal's mother, for admitting in the hospital. The said Warshal is PW1's helper in his residence. Before sending the same, the complainant enquired at the Ist opposite party whether the money order will reach at the destination on the very next day. Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the speed post money order will reach on the next day or subsequent day. So the complainant paid Rs.12/- extra for speed post. But it took the time as per the ordinary money order. So the complainant approached the Ist opposite party and complained about the same. But the Ist opposite party misbehaved to PW1. Ist opposite party was examined as DW1, he deposed that the complainant reached the Ist opposite party only after receiving the money order by the addressee, not before sending the money order. No assurance was given by the DW1 about the speed post. The speed post money order will reach on the very next day only in the place where aircraft service is available. In India, the time for delivery of money order is different in different places. But the postal law is same in all places. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant paid Rs.12/- extra as speed post charge. If the postal department receives the same, they have to do the duty also in prompt time. They must not give the importance in the amount of money. The speed post money order is sending for a particular purpose, here the purpose is not covered. As per PW1, the Ist opposite party gave an assurance for the delivery of money order in a definite time. If the Ist opposite party's office received money for speed post, they should give the assurance in delivering the same in the prompt time. If the addressee is living in a remote area, and the Ist opposite party is sure that the speed post will not reach in time, the Ist opposite party ought to have avoided the payment of money for speed post. As per DW1,the addressed place is a remote area in Tamil Nadu, there is no aircraft facility in that area. Even understanding the same, the opposite party's office received extra money from the complainant for speed post. It is gross deficiency of service from the part of the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party deliberately collected money, even he was absolutely certain that the speed post will not reach in time. Collecting money from public people for speed post and delivering the article in ordinary postal time means cheating of the public. The Ist opposite party done the same fraudulently with willful Act. So Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898 will not attract in this case, as per contention of the opposite party. Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act also will not come under this case. So we think it is fit to give Rs.2,000/- for the deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
 

As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant and also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2008