1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that his wife is an acute gastric patient and for her treatment on 16.10.2014 he sent Rs. 3000/- from Balimela S.O. in favour of her wife Smt. Hemalata Sahu residing at Bishnupur, P.O. Bahudarada – 756112 through M.O. with prescribed charges. It is submitted that since the said amount has not been reached in the destination in proper time, he lodged a written complaint to the O.P. No. No. 4 and requested for its enquiry.Further it is submitted that after several approaches to the O.P. No. 4, since he did not receive any proper response, he reported the matter to their higher authorities, and finally on 27.02.2015 when he met with the O.P. No. 4 regarding such enquiry, who in reply did not give any satisfactory answer and enraged and misbehaved the complainant infront of the other public and office staffs.Thus alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Opp. Parties to pay Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the Opp. Parties have appeared in this case and filed their joint counter denying all the allegations of complainant stating that the money order has already been paid to the payee on 22.05.2015 and the delay was caused only due to computer system error but not for any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department.  It is also contended that complainant has not raised any specific allegation of fraudulent or willful act by the Opp.  Parties, as such, by giving emphasize / immunity to Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Opp. Parties has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.
    
3. Parties have filed certain documents and affidavit.  We perused the documents available in the record. On repeated adjournments, the complainant was absent before the Forum, hence we have lost opportunities to be heard from the complainant, however, on merit of the case and documents filed by the parties, we have found the followings.   

4.              In the instant case, the remittance of Rs. 3000/- by the Complainant through the O.P.No. 4 is an admitted fact.  It is also an  admitted fact that the said amount of Rs. 3000/- has not been remitted to the payee i.e. Smt. Hemalata Sahu, wife of the complainant, in time for which the complainant had lodged a written complaint on 26.11.2014 with the Ops.  The contentions of the complainant is that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 3000/- on 16.10.2014 in the Office of O.P.No. 4 for the treatment of her wife Smt. Hemalata Sahu who is an acute gastric patient and residing at Bishnupur, P.O. Bahudarada, Dist. Bhadrak.  But the same has not been remitted to the payee i.e. his wife, in due time for which, the treatment of his wife could not be taken up properly. As such, he lodged a written complaint with the O.P. No. 4, to get enquiry about non remittance of the said money order, and the same is also acknowledged by the O.P. No. 4 on 26.11.2014.  Complainant has filed certain documents to that effect.  From which, it is clearly evident that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 3000/- towards the treatment of his wife and the said amount has not been remitted to her in time.

5. On the other hand the Opp. Parties have not challenged the allegations of the complainant, rather they have admitted the said fact stating that the electronic money order are to be transmitted through web to the payment office for payment, and due to computer system crash at Balimela S.O. on dated 16.10.2014 the data of the said eMO could not be transmitted to the payment office and as such the same could not be paid to payee in due time.  Further the Ops have admitted that the said amount of Rs. 3000/- was remitted to the payee on 22.05.2015 after issue of a duplicate money order and the same was acknowledged by the wife of the complainant.  O.Ps have filed certain documents to that effect, which clearly evident that remittance amount of Rs. 3000/- was paid to the payee after lapse of 7 months of its actual deposit and after the dispute was raised before this Forum.
    
6. We feel, if the submissions of Ops is taken into consideration, than the computer system crash can be rectified within a short span of time either in a day or two or three, but remaining silent for a period of more than 7 months, is clearly proves the inefficiency and negligence in duty on the part of the Ops, and for their own inactivity, they cannot hide their fault and cannot take advantage of the provisions U/s 48 of their Act and for that one should not be mentally harassed.  In the case in hand, O.Ps have showed their inefficiency in work by not rectifying the problems occurred in the computer system or else, they could have arranged some other sources to remit the hard earnings of the complainant which was sent exclusively for the medical purpose of his wife.  Thus, the plea of Ops only regarding computer system crash is not sustainable in the eye of law.    
    
7. Further, emphasizing upon the provision U/s 48 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the OPs contended that the delay was caused due to computer system error but nor for any fraudulent or any willful act or default of any official of the department.  We have carefully gone through the provisions U/s 48 of the said Act as well as the whole Act of 1898.

Whereas the Sub Section 3 of Section 48 has only emphasized regarding the proceeding which can be instituted for any fault of any officer of Post Office in respect of their fraud or willful act but does not reveals that for any machinery fault if one person is harassed, they can take shelter under the said Act, as the said defect can be rectified within a short period, so that one person including the complainant would not have faced any harassment. In the case in hand, the O.P. No. 4 could have rectified the problems in the computer system and solved the disputes within no time, but without doing so, they remained silent for a long period keeping the complainant in dark. Further the plea regarding computer system crash is not a big problem, or else it could have solved in short period.Further the O.Ps have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the computer system was crashed on dated16.10.2014, therefore, we feel that since there is no cogent evidence from the side O.Ps, the plea regarding computer system crash does not have any stand value on its part.

We feel, the Ops have only to avoid their liability have taken shelter under the provision U/s 48 of the Act, whereas Section 37 clearly emphasizes for return of any articles to the remitter, if not delivered in time.By not following the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, the O.Ps have proved their deficiency in service.

8. Further, the allegation of complaint is that the said amount of Rs. 3000/- was to be remitted only for the treatment of his wife Smt. Hemalata Sahu, who was an acute gastric patient, for which the complainant has lodged a written complaint on 26.11.2014 to the O.Ps which was also acknowledged by them, but since they have not taken any proper step to provide their best services, the money of complainant could not remitted in time and due to non remittance of the said amount, he has suffered mentally agony, physical harassment.  It is an ironical truth that at the time of medical urgency and treatment, definitely one person became hopeless and helpless if he does not have any financial source.  Due to non remittance of money, definitely the purpose of remittance could not fulfilled and the wife of complainant must have faced financial problems during her need, and so also physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant (husband) in such situation is quite understandable.In the case between Surinder Singh Vrs. Post Master General reported in 1991 (I) CPR 507, the Hon’ble State Commission has also clearly held that “x x x x x The physical and mental agony suffered by a father in such situation is quite understandable and it would be just and reasonable to order compensation of Rs. 5000/- on this account”.Hence, it can besafely concluded that in the case in hand, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also filed this case incurring some expenditures, for which he is entitled some compensation and costs.Considering his suffering, we feel a sum of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs, will meet the end of justice.

                                                                             ORDER

               Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is allowed in part and the O.Ps being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay compensation to an amount of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards costs within one month from the date of communication of this Order, failing which, the compensation amount shall bear interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of communication of this order till payment, which will meet the ends of justice.

                       Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of November, 2017. 

           Issue free copy to the parties concerned.