SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            Gist of the complaint case is that after death of her husband Gunadhar Maity she was enjoying family pension from the Government on the basis of PPO No. DPPG/Pen(s-a) 639 through her Postal Account No 28. She did not get the pension amount for the month of August, 2017. On enquiry the Treasury Officer informed all concerned that the pension amount has been deposited by Tamluk Treasury  to Chapda Post Office.  But till date the Chapda Post office did not pay that amount  to the complainant.  The complainant is now 85 years old and she is suffering from different old-aged ailments and she is suffering much ordeal in the matter of getting the said amount for the month of August, 2017.  The complainant made written representation to the post office and also the Superintendent of post Office, Tamluk through letters dated 07.11.2017,14.11.2017, 30.11.2017 and also dated 20.11.2017 but the OPs had no response whatsoever.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers for a direction upon the Ops to pay her Rs. 6894/- with 10 % interest from 30.08.2017 and other reliefs.

            The OPs No 1 and 2   appeared and contested the case by filing  a single written version.   It is submitted by these OPs that EMO No. 141571010009637 for Rs 5000/- and 141571010009638 for Rs. 1656 booked at Tamluk HPO  on 10.10.2017 was remitted by the Additional Treasury Officer, Tamluk. The above EMO was booked at Tamluk HPO  and it was redirected   to Pulsita SO Pin 721154 on 06.02.2018. for payment  to the payee.  The concerned delivery post man  set out  for payment of the same to the payee Smt. Puspa Maity oin 07.02.2018 but the MOS were refused by the payee. As such the amount had been paid back to the remitter on 12.03.2018 by the booking office  i.e the Tamluk HPO. The amount had been paid through A/C payee chqeue No. 012687 foRs.6565/-to the Additional Treasury Officer, Tamluk.  It  is the further defense of these  OPs that  as per Section 48@ of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 no suit or other legal proceedings shall be  instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of payment  of any money order being refused or delayed by…… In such circumstances, these OPs prays for dismissal of the complaint case.

              The OP No. 3 has not turned up to contest the case. So the case is heard ex parte against the OP no. 3.

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the complaint, the written version affidavit in-chief of the complainant and its questionnaires and reply fled by the parties and all  the documents filed by both the parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant.  Considered.

            The grievance of the complainant is that she did not get her family pension for the month  August, 2017 although it was deposited  in the post office  on 30.08.2017 by Tamluk Treasury. As per the written version of the OP no. 1 and 2 EMO No 141571010009637 for Rs 5000/- and No 141571010009638 for Rs. 1656 booked at Tamluk HPO  on 10.10.2017  by remitter Additional Treasury Officer, Tamluk Treasury and the above EMO were booked  at Tamluk HPO on 10.10.17  and data centre received and redirected  to the payment office i.e Pulsita SO Pin No.721154 on 06.02.2018 and the concerned delivery postman  set for payment of the same  to the payee Smt.  Puspa Maity on 0702.2018 but the MOs were refused by the payee. According to the OPs 1 and 2  as the MO was refused the amount had been paid back  to the remitter on 12.03.2018 by the booking office of the EMO i.e Tamluk HPO.    The Ops further contended that the said amount was paid through A/C payee chqeue No. 012687 for Rs. 6565/- to the Additional Treasury Officer, Tamluk. The broad band service net work  at Pulsita SO since from the October 2017 was out  of order  due to sudden break down of BSNL of the entire area and as a result some network related packages such as EMO badly suffered.

            Ld advocate for the  OPs submitted that as per Section 48  of Indian Post Office Act,1898 no suit other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the post Office in respect of payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of ,any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by 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 or (e)  any wrong payment or delay in payment of money order beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post office, not being one established by the Central Government. According to these OPs there is no negligence on the part of the Ops  and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or litigation cost.

            The complainant has filed affidavit in-chief and she has stated therein that  her husband  Gunadhar Maity was a Primary School teacher  and he retired from service in the year 1984. She enjoyed pension after retirement and continuing the same till his death in2001. After death of her husband, she enjoyed the family pension through Money Order of  Postal Section Her PPO No. is DPPG(Pen s-a) 639  and was receiving pension at village and PO Chapda Dist. Purba Medinipur. Her Account No. is 28.  She could not get her pension for the month of August, 2017.  The complainant did not admit that the OPs  has deposited any amount in her favour till today. The complainant has stated that she is 85 years old widow and is suffering from various ailments. The complainant informed the matter to the OPs 1 and 2  and she was harassed by the OPs 1 and 2 .  The complainant denied that ther  was break down of  Broadband Service in the area of Pulsita SO was out of order from  August, 2017 and or for that reason the network related  payment of EMO had suffered.    

            The complainant had been cross-examined by the OPs no. 1 and 2.

            We have perused the documents  produced by the OPs. The document dated 12.03.2-018 by the Sub Post Master of Pulsita who informed the complainant for failure of link from 08.10.2017 to 03.02.2018 and it was not possible for them to remit the amount to the payee properly.  Second document is dated 12.03.2018 of one Kartick Chandra Mondal on behalf of the Superintendant of Post Office, Tamluk Division . he informed that he had been to the house of the complainant  to deliver money but the complainant refused to accept that.

The OPs  also produced a copy of Indian Post Office Act 1948 where Section 48 says  that no legal proceeding or suit shall be instituted against the government or any officer of the Post office in respect of   (a) Anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter; or  (b) the wrong payment of money  order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the  information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee ; or (c) the payment of any 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 , or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer ; or (d) any wrong payment or a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order; or (e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government.

But in this regard Section 3 of the C.P.Act says – the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. So,  Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act  1948 will not be application in this case.

            Thus, after going through the entire materials on record  it appears that  the Ops did not tae any steps to deliver the amount of family pension to the complainant payee nor it had been deposited in her Account of Savings Bank in the Post Office.  The complainant has stated that she is 85 years old widow and is suffering from various ailments. This statement of the complainant has not been challenged by the OPs. So, the Ops should deposit  the amount in the A/C of the complainant.   The complainant is an aged family pension holder and  the OPs have a liability to make arrangement so that  her ordeal could be diminished and she can get the due family pension.  

            The OP no. 3, The Treasury Officer, Tamluk has not appeared to contest the case. But here the OP no 3 has also some responsibility  to make arrangement so that the due pension amount can reach the hand of the complainant.

            The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-. Considering the entire materials on record and the case of both the parties,  we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to only litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- in addition to the amount of compensation as prayed for ion the complaint.  

            Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/37 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the OPs No 1  and 2 and ex parte against the OP No .3.  

The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.  6894/-  as due family pension for the month of August, 2017  and Litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- totaling Rs. 7894/-within fifteen days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ Rs 12 % per annum shall be imposed upon the OPs till full satisfaction of the awarded amount.

However, no order as to compensation is passed.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.