For Complainant         :           Self

For Opp. Party             :           Self.

                                                                                                         -x-

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he sent 2 Money Orders (MOs) @ Rs.700/- on 19.02.2018 through Pitaguda Branch Post Office to his niece and nephew on the occasion of thread ceremony of their sons scheduled on 28.02.2018 but the concerned Branch Office of the OP did not send the MOs for delivery for which the complainant had to face a lot of humiliation and loss of prestige.  It is submitted that on complaint to OP, it sent an intimation to the complainant on 21.06.2018 stating that they are enquiring into the matter and from that date instead of getting any proper reply, the complainant was humiliated with harsh and insulting words by the Ops.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.1400/- towards M.O. amount, Rs.70/- towards postal commission and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed reply admitting 2 MOs booked by the complainant at their Pitaguda B.O. with MO receipt No.52 & 53 for Rs.700/- each and the same were rebooked through computer at Nandapur SPO bearing E-MO No. XXX 781 and XXX 782 with Rs.700/- each addressed to one Swarnalata Dash and another Kedar Dash, At/PO-Siala, Via-Parikud, Dist-Puri.  It is contended that after booking the said eMOs were transmitted to Balugaon SPO on 21.02.2018 through Central Server and from Balugaon, the same were redirected to Parikudagarh Sub Office but the eMOs could not be fetched at Parikudagarh SPO for payment due to complicacies arising because of migration of postal operations to the Core System Instigator (CSI) platform where maximum operations of post office could be carried out on a single platform.  It is further contended that as the eMOs could not be fetched, the OP issued duplicate MOs manually to the addressees on 24.05.2019 through Nandapur SPO but the payees refused to accept the MOs and the same were returned to the sender on 02.08.2019.  Thus denying any wilful negligence on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from them at length and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case booking of two MOs at Pitaguda Branch P.O. under Nandapur SPO on 19.2.2018 with MO Receipt No.52 & 53 for Rs.700/- each by the complainant is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that as the MOs did not reach to their destinations he made complaint with the OP and the OP on 21.6.2018 intimated the complainant that they are looking into the matter but till filing of this case, he has been running to the PO to know the status of the MOs sent by him.  The complainant further stated that he is facing humiliation due to non delivery of the MOs meant for Bhikshya on the occasion of thread ceremony of his relatives scheduled on 28.2.2018.

5.                     The OP in his counter stated that MOs were rebooked through computer at Nandapur SPO addressed to one Swarnalata Dash and another to Kedar Dash, At/PO-Siala, Via-Parikuda, Dist-Puri-752 001 and transmitted to Balugaon SPO and from there the same were redirected to Parikuda SPO but the MOs could not be fetched at Parikuda SPO for payment due to complicacies arising because of migration of postal operation to the CSI platform.  It is further stated that observing non payment of MOs to the payees for a long period, the complainant has intimated the facts to the OP but in spite of efforts, the MOs could not be fetched at Parikuda SPO and hence on 24.5.2019 duplicate MOs were sent from Nandapur SPO but the payees refused to accept the MOs and the same were returned to the sender on 02.08.2019.

6.                     From the above facts it was noticed that the MOs were booked on 19.2.18 but due to non payment, the complainant intimated the facts to SSPO on 14.6.2018 and the SSPO assured to the complainant through a letter dt.21.6.2018 that they are looking into the matter.  After 4 months of booking of MOs the complainant has made complaint but the OP did not feel it proper to intimate the complainant regarding non payment of MOs during that four months. Had the complainant been intimated, the matter would have been different.  This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the Ops arising out of wilful default in payment of MOs and non intimation of the facts of such non payment.

7.                     It is further seen that after 21.6.2018 the Ops remained silent.  The OP stated that despite all possible sincere efforts, the MOs could not be fetched but the OP failed to explain as to what steps they have taken to deliver the MOs on day to day basis.  Even if, the OP has not intimated anything to the complainant after 21.6.18.  It is further seen that after a long 11 months, the Ops have sent duplicate MOs manually to the addressees who refused to receive the MOs.   MOs are being sent for a particular work.  If after 11 months, the MOs reached the addressees, the money will not help them in any way. The OP also failed to explain before us as to why they took 11 months of time after complaint dt.14.6.18 to send MOs manually.  Further duplicate MOs were sent on 24.5.2019 and the addressees refused to receive the MOs but the Ops returned the money to the complainant on 02.08.2019 that is after 2 months which leads to utter callousness towards their duties by the Ops.

8.                     The OP is grumbling about Sec.48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898.  As per the above law, no suit can be filed against the Ops except any fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer.  It was clearly ascertained from the above facts and circumstances of the case that after booking of MOs on 19.02.2018, the Ops remained silent till 14.6.2018 when a complaint was lodged by the complainant due to non payment of MOs.  The Ops assured on 21.6.2018 to look into the matter but remained silent.    Only on 24.5.2019 they have sent duplicate MOs manually and due to refusal of such MOs they returned the same to the complainant on 02.8.2019.  These inactions of the Ops in our opinion amount to wilful default in payment of MOs to the addressee.  Further non intimation regarding any problem to the complainant also amounts to serious deficiency in service.  Hence the Ops and his officials are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.

9.                     The complainant stated that due to non delivery of MOs in time he faced humiliation in the society and faced social bars from the relatives. We feel the situation and problems of the complainant very much.  Due to such inactions of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs which includes MO charges in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  It is to be noted that the complainant has received back the money order amount from the OP.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards compensation and cost within 30 days from the date of communication this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.  However, the OP is at liberty to realise the above amount from the erring officials after due enquiry.

(to dict.)