DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> Dated this the 15th day of November, 2007<br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President I/C<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.12/2007<br /> <br /> Ajitha Velayudhan,<br /> D/o.Late Velayudhan,<br /> Ayyappankavu,<br /> Karingarapully (Post),<br /> Palakkad - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.The Superintendent,<br /> Palakkad Fort Post Office,<br /> Fort Maidan, Palakkad.<br /> <br /> 2.C.R.Ramakrishnan, <br /> Senior Superintendent,<br /> Palakkad Division,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite parties <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President I/C<br /> <br /> Complainant in this case had sent a money order from Palakkad Fort Post Office under No.2490 on 27-11-06 for Rs.900/- payable to Manoj.V, who is in Mumbai, for attending urgent needs. But till the date of filing the case his brother has not received the sum and the complainant has not received any acknowledgement in this regard. Complainant submits that many a time he has approached the Postal Authorities and made several complaints but there was no result. She alleges that the acts of opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service. Hence the complainant approached this forum seeking <br /> <br /> an order directing the opposite parties to give a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the amount of money order, mental agony suffered by the complainant etc.<br /> <br /> Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties for their appearance and version. Opposite parties entered appearance and 2nd opposite party filed version on behalf of both parties stating the followings.<br /> <br /> Opposite party in their version denied all the allegation in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted. Opposite party admitted that the complainant had booked a money order from Palakkad Fort Post Office under No.2490 on 27-11-06 for Rs.900/- payable to Manoj.V, S/o.Ramdas, Room No.3, Meenakshi Nivas, Sc.19, Koparkhaine – 400 709 and the same was correctly dispatched to its destination on the same day itself. Opposite party submits that he came to know about the non payment of the money order to the payee only when the complainant preferred a complaint on 11-12-06. Immediately on receipt of the complaint, the 2nd opposite party made a detailed enquiries into the matter. 2nd opposite party contended that on 03-01-07 he received an information from the Sub Postmaster, Koparkhaine, Navi Mumbai stating that the Money Order has not reached the destination and <br /> hence not paid to the payee. By this time, the opposite party received reminder dtd. 11-12-06 on 05-01-07 stating that the Money Order has not been received to the payee till 05-01-07. Opposite party submitted that immediately on receipt of the letter dtd.05-01-07, the 2nd opposite party initiated action to issue duplicate money order and the same was sent by Registered post under RL No.2054 to payees destination. Opposite party submits that the duplicate money order has been paid to the payee on 06-02-07 and the matter was informed to the complainant also on 26-02-07 by the Inspector Public Grievances and vide letter No.CC/pg/4189/06 dtd.05-03-07. <br /> <br /> The complainant also gave a written statement to the Inspector and informed that she had also received information from the payee that the money order was paid on 06-02-07 and assured them to withdraw the complaint. It is contented that contrary to the above the complainant chose to proceed with the case. <br /> <br /> The opposite party averred that the allegation the complainant did not get any fruitful result for the complaint preferred to the opposite parties was not factual and hence denied. Opposite party also submits that her complaint was promptly acknowledged and action was taken by the opposite parties to settle her grievances. The opposite party states that they were in a position to issue duplicate money order only after ascertaining from the office of payment that the money order has not been paid and also from the office of booking that the money was not received back and paid to the remitter in order to safe guard from double payment. Further the opposite party submits that they were liable to pay compensation for delay only if it is established that the delay so occurred due to the willful negligence of the employees of the department and in such cases there should be ample evidence to prove the fraud against the particular employee who acted on behalf of the opposite parties. But in the present case no such allegation has been raised against any employee. There is no willful act or slackness on the part of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Opposite party submits that as per Section 48 c of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 “no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Govt or any officer of the post office in respect of the payment of money order being refused or delayed on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of the officer of post office or for any other cause whatsoever other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer. <br /> <br /> Further Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act absolutely exempts the post office from any liability for delay or wrong payment of money orders sent through post and hence the opposite parties representing the Govt of India are not liable to pay compensation for delay or wrong payment of money orders sent through posts.<br /> <br /> Opposite party contended that the complainant has no evidence to prove that the delay was due to the fraud or willful negligence or default on the part of the opposite parties and for that reasons alone the allegation of deficiency and negligence is not sustainable under Section 48C of the Indian Post Office Act. Hence the opposite party prayed to accept their contentions and to dismiss the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits as well as documents. Exts.A1 to A4 was marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 was marked on the side of opposite parties. Complainant filed questionnaire and opposite party filed answers to the questionnaire filed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> Heard the parties.<br /> <br /> It is obvious from the Exbt.A1 that the complainant has sent a money order from Palakkad Fort post Office under No.2490 on 27.11.2006 for Rs.900/- payable to Manoj.V in Navi Mumbai. It is noticed that the complainant had approached opposite parties on 15.12.06 and preferred a complaint for non payment of the money order to the payee as per Exbt.A2. According to Exbt.A3 opposite party has reported that the money order has not been paid and action has been taken for issuance of duplicate money order and to effect payment of the same to the payee. From Exbt.B2 it is evident that the money <br /> <br /> order has been delivered to the payee on 06.02.07 after a delay of 2 months. It is very clear from the Exbt.B1 that the complainant had no complaint for the delay caused in delivering the money order. <br /> <br /> We are of the view that in the present day set up the delay caused in the part of opposite party cannot be justified. But we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party since S.48(1) of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 exempt the post office from the liability for the delay so caused. In the above circumstances, the complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of November, 2007 <br /> President I/C (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Receipt of money order<br /> Ext.A2 – Letter from opposite party dtd.15.12.06<br /> Ext.A3 – Letter from opposite party dtd.10.01.07<br /> Ext.A4 - Letter from opposite party dtd.05.03.07<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties<br /> Ext.B1 – Letter from complainant to opposite party dtd.26.02.06<br /> Ext.B2 – Letter from Superintendent of Post Office to Mumbai<br /> Ext.B3 – Reply from Mumbai<br /> <br /> Costs (Not allowed)<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent