For the Complainant:- Self.
For the O.P:- Sri Raj Kamal Acharya, Addl . Govt. Pleader, Bhawanipatna.
ORDER.
The present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.Ps for late delivery of M.O. The brief facts of the case are summarized here
That the complainant had sent E-Money Order bearing E. M.O No. 087624150824024239 on Dt. 24.8.2015 from Head Post office, Bhawanipatna a sum of Rs.200/- to Smt. Ilachi Devi Agrawal, Kesinga on the eve of Rakhya Bandhan. But the above E-Money order delivered just after 15 days i.e. on Dt.8.9.2015 after Rakhya Bandhan. That the purpose of sending money through E-M.O. has totally failed. The complainant had written a letter to the O.P. on Dt. 9.9.2015 regarding the delay delivery of E- Money Order. The complainant feel the O.Ps service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly speaking of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps with a view to hoodwinking gullible consumers. That due to delay, negligence and deficiency in service by the O.Ps the complainant sustained mental agony, damages etc and physical, mental or even emotional suffering , insult hence the O.P. is liable to pay compensation under circumstances of the case. The deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps officials has evidently caused mental anguish to the complainant driving him to take legal measures for the redressal of his grievance. Therefore the complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. not to repeat the same in future and to pay compensation and cost of litigation for mental agony and damages. Further direct the O.P fixing the responsibility on the defaulting officials for recovery of the compensation amount from the salary of the defaulting officials whose whimsical acts are responsible for this complaint and grant such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under circumstances of the case for the best interest of justice.
On being noticed the O.P. filed Written version through their learned counsel and submitted that due to technical fault in EMO communication, the EMOs were not received at Kesinga Sub-Office till 7.9.2015 . The E.M.O. was paid to Smt. Ilachi Devi Agrawal (Payee) on 8.9.2015. The O.P. submitted there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The O.P also filed citations relating to the case. Therefore the O.P. prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition against the O.P.
The O.P appeared and filed their written version. Arguments from the learned counsel for the O.P and from the complainant heard. Perused the record, documents, written argument filed by both the parties.
The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
On perusal of the written version filed by the O.P. we observed the reply submitted that due to technical fault in EMO communication, the EMOs were not received at Kesinga Sub-Office till 7.9.2015 is not satisfactory answer we feel this is one of plea to defend the case.
It is admitted by the O.P. that the E-Money Order had been delivered on Dt. 8.9.2015 i.e. after 15 days of dispatch of the same. The Postal Deptt. is Central Govt. and people repose lot of faith in the service of the Postal Deptt. A common consumer who is depositing a E-Money Order with complete hope that it will be reached to the sendee within time. In the instant case the complainant had sent E- Money Order to his sister at Kesinga. Kesinga is a 35 Km. away from Bhawanipatna from which the Money Order was dispatched. The forum fully agreed to the contention of the complainant that the Money was dispatched to the Kesinga on the occasion Rakhya Bandhan and that when the M.O. has not received for the purpose for which it was send the purpose is frustructed causing mental agony to the complainant. The O.P. contended that he is not aware of the purpose of sending the E- M.O. of this case which may be true. So also the case of the complainant who in complete faith on the service of the O.P. send the E-M.O. after paying required M.O. charges with expectation that the service is properly rendered and money is received in time by the person to whom it is send. The complainant is not at all concerned about the technical reasons which croped up within the postal Deptt. causing the undue delay on rendering its service.
The print media and electronic media are replete with news as how undelivered registered letters & speed post letters in large No. are found thrown in desert places and nallas. This due to the callousness of the postal Deptt. and never be explained.
Further it is held and reported in 2002 C.T. J page No.477 the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the C.P.Act, 1986 passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the consumers has to be protected in order to curb the exploitation from the service providers and the C.P. Act is a special law over rides the general law of limitation. Again Section-3 of the C.P. Act is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of C.P.Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Thus even if any other Act provides for any remedy to the litigant for redressal by that remedy a litigant can go to District Consumer Forum, That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to the Forum assuming jurisdiction. The word ‘In addition to’ in Section-3 makes it clear that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the existing laws in force and the C.P. Act provides additional remedies to the Consumer. Further the C.P. act is a welfare legislation.
The learned counsel for the O.P. filed Indian post office Act, 1898 & citations in connection with this case Revision petitions Nos. 15 of 1997, No.1006 of 2001, No.11035 of 2002 and Date of Order 18th. September, 2002 of Hon’ble National C.D.R.Commission, New Delhi. The above Citations filed by the O.P which are not squarly applicable to the present case.
So in this case we are of the opinion that the O.P. is completely negligent and deficiency rendering in service to the complainant. As the sister has already received the amount of M.O. sent through E-M.O and this case is partly allowed on contest.
To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed:-
ORDER.
The O.P. is directed to refund the cost of E-M.O. i.e. Rs.20/- to the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
The O.P is ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as laid down in the C.P. Act for realization of the same from the O.Ps.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 31st. Day of March, 2016.
Member. Member. President.
Documents relied upon:-
By the complainant.
- Xerox copies of the E-M.O. receipt Dt. 24.8.2015
- Letter Dt. 9.9.2015 of the complainant addressed to the O.P.
By the O.P
- Xerox copies of the Citation.
President
