DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of May 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 23/04/2014
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.61/2014)
Rathnakumari.
W/o.Unni Narayanan,
Palatt Veedu,
Malamakkavu – 679 554
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.T.V.Pradheesh)
V/s
1.V.T.Lenin
Superintendent of Postal Department
Ottapalam
(By Authorised Person)
2.Sasi Kumaran,
Inspector in charge
Public Complaint Section,
Postal Superintendent office,
Ottapalam
(By Party in person)
3. The Secretary
Anakkara Grama Panchayath
Kumbidi Post – 679 553
Palakkad
(By Authorised Person)
4. R.P.Subramanian
Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer
Malamakkavu Post Office,
Malamakkavu, Pattambi Taluk - Opposite parties
(By Authorised Person)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant has not obtained old age pension from 3rd Opposite party Anakkara Grama Panchayat for the month of September 2013. Then she enquired about the non receipt of pension, 3rd opposite party informed that they had already sent money order to the post office and requested to enquire with the postal authority. As per the information from the 3rd opposite party, daughter in law of the complainant sent a complaint to the 1st opposite party Postal Superintendent of Ottapalam on 28-10-2013. Complainant further submits that on 8-11-2013 1st opposite party sent a reply with untenable contentions. Then again daughter in law of the complainant sent another letter on 19-11-2013 to Post Master General Kozhikode. After that 4th opposite party approached the complainant with a duplicate money order form and requested her to sign in the form without giving payment. But the complainant did not sign the duplicate money order. When the complainant reluctant to sign the form, 4th opposite party threatened her by saying that money order would be sent to 3rd opposite party. After that on 7-3-2014 Post Master General sent a letter to the complainant stating that there are some lapses on the part of 4th opposite party. But they were not taken any action against 4th opposite party. Complainant submitted that till this date she had not received pension amount of Rs.1600/-. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony apart from the financial loss. Hence the complainant prayed for an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1600/- being the money order amount to the complainant.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties. After receiving the notice, opposite parties appeared before the Forum.
1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version contending the following
1st and 2nd opposite parties denied all the allegations leveled against them. 1st and 2nd opposite parties contended that the complainant has not preferred any complaint to this department. On 28-10-2013 Mrs. Briji V, Palat House, Malamakkavu daughter in law of the pensioner complainant preferred a complaint to the 1st opposite party. As per provisions contained in Sec.81 of the Post Office Guide Part 1 issued by the Department for the information of the general public, it has been mentioned that either the payee or the remitter of the money order is advised to prefer a complaint early as possible, if the money order is not paid in a reasonable time. In the present case neither the remitter of the money order nor the payee Smt. Ratnakumari preferred any complaint with the department alleging nonpayment of money order. Instead third party has preferred a complaint.
These opposite parties further contented that the complainant had received the payment of the cost of money order and she was misguided by her daughter in law to further crooked interests. After receiving the complaint they enquired the matter through Inspector of Posts. The inspector questioned 4th opposite party and he deposed that he had correctly paid Rs.1600/- being the value of money order No. 059621130906010610 dated 6-9-3013 of Kumbidi Post Office on 13-9-2013 after obtaining the signature of payee. But unfortunately concerned money order paid voucher was lost from his custody before submitting the daily returns before the Branch Post Master, Malamakkavu. He has informed these facts to the Branch Post office Malamakkavu. After that he again visited complainant s residence on the subsequent days for obtaining signature in the duplicate copy of money order/memo of admission of payment. But the complainant refused to sign the said document. On the part of enquiry 2nd opposite party also went to complainant s house but complainant did not co-operate with the enquiry either admitting or denying the payment of the money order either orally or in writing.
As the complainant did not sign the duplicate copy of money order, 4th opposite party voluntarily credited the value of money order under unclassified receipts to this department so as to settle the issue. Again the money order was presented for payment to the complainant by the 4th opposite party and Branch Post Master Malamakkavu on 13-3-2014. But the complainant refused to accept the payment. Complainant s daughter in law directed the post office staff to keep the money order under deposit for one week. Complainant accepted intimation for the money order under acquittance. As per the departmental rules the money order was kept in deposit for seven days after serving intimation expecting payment. This money order under reference kept for seven days in deposit and returned to 3rd opposite party as she did not accept the payment of the duplicate money order. Hence there was no deficiency from the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
3rd opposite party filed version admitting that on 6-9-2013 they had sent pension to complainant. But up on the complaint dated 3-12-2013 of Mrs. Briji they have sent a letter dated 4-3-2014 to Malamakavu post office. Malamakavu post office not replied for the same. Hence they sent another letter to Postal Divisional Superintendent Ottapalam. They replied for the same stating that complainant refused the money order of Rs.1600/- given by the postman. On 24-3-2014 money order returned by the post office was received in their office. And after complying the rules they deposited the amount at Koottanad Sub Treasury. And submitted the application to the district collector for the payment of arrears of Rs.1600/- and after getting confirmation from the collector the amount would be remitted to the complainant. Next payment of Rs.2000/- sent to the complainant and informed that they had received the amount. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party.
4th opposite party filed version contending the following:
He denied all the allegations leveled against him. He submits that he is working as GDSMD Malamakavu since 1990. He admitted that on 13-9-2013 he had received one electronic money order payable to the complainant for Rs.1600/- sent by the 3rd opposite party along with 57 other electronic money orders payable to various payees along with cash Rs.70000/-. And he had paid the electronic money order under No.059621130906010 dated 6-9-2013 for Rs.1600/- to the correct payee Smt. Ratnakumari on 13-9-2013. While submitting the postman returns on 13-9-2013 evening, he found that the said e-money order paid voucher was missing. This matter was brought to the notice of Branch Post Master. Total amount of Rs.53785/- was paid on 13-9-2013 being the value of 45 electronic money orders. The balance amount of Rs.16,125/- being the value of 12 money orders were returned to the Branch Post Master along with other electronic money order forms concerned, treating the electronic money order payable to Smt.Ratnakumari as unpaid. He submitted that he was very sure that money order has been paid to the correct payee on 13-9-2013 and was confident that the acquittance of the payee could be obtained on Memo of Admission of Payment, the document need to be printed as per department rules in case of the money order voucher is lost after payment. Loss of money order paid voucher was reported to the higher authorities namely Sub Postmaster, Koodallur and the Assistant Superintend of Post office, Pattambi Postal Sub Division in time. The Sub Post Master, Kudallur on receipt of the report from Malamakkavu Branch Post Office forwarded a reprint of the said electronic money order to Malamakkavu branch post office for obtaining the signature of the complainant. Accordingly the 4th opposite party approached the complainant to get the electronic money order signed which she refused to do on the plea that she had already received the payment of the said electronic money order. As such the matter was again reported to the higher authorities. As per the directions from the higher authorities amount of Rs.1600/- was credited to post office accounts by 4th opposite party being the value of the electronic money order lost after payment. Then he approached complainant along with Post Master for effecting payment of the money order to her. Her daughter in law prevented the complainant from accepting the money order under the plea that the electronic money order cannot be accepted before getting a legal advice. Hence intimation was served to her for obtaining her signature in the postman book. On the following day daughter in law turned up to the post office and informed that the complainant is not willing to accept the value of the electronic money order and orally instructed to return. Accordingly the money order was sent to the sender 3rd opposite party. Subsequently on 4-6-2014 one Electronic Money Order with No.059621140603013852for Rs.1600/- was received at Malamakkavu BO as payable to the complainant and was paid to the complainant on the same day. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 4th opposite party.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked from the side of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B20 were marked from the side of the opposite parties. Relevant portion of Ext.B12 was marked as Ext.B12(a). Daughter in law of the complainant was examined from the side of complainant as PW1 and DW1 to DW5 were examined from the side of opposite parties. Opposite parties filed IA.366/14 seeking permission to cross examine complainant. In the interest of justice application was allowed and being considering the old age of the complainant liberty was given to take out commission for her cross examination.
The following issues are considered
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issue 1& 2.
Heard both parties. We have perused the documents produced before the Forum. Allegation of the complainant is that she has not obtained the old age pension of Rs.1600/-for the month of September sent by 3rd opposite party. Main contention of the opposite parties is that the 4th opposite party had paid the electronic money order under No.059621130906010 dated 6-9-2013 for Rs.1600/- to the correct payee Smt.Ratnakumari on 13-9-2013 itself, unfortunately paid voucher was lost from 4th opposite party and she was misguided by her daughter in law to further crooked interests. As per the advice of daughter in law, complainant preferred a complaint before the Forum.
Opposite parties filed IA.366/14 seeking permission to cross examine complainant. Considering the old age of the complainant liberty was given to take out commission for her cross examination. Even though several chances were given for the appearance of the complainant she was not present for cross examination or take out commission for the examination of the complainant. Daughter in law of the complainant was examined on behalf of complainant. While cross examination of the PW1 Briji deposed ഓഗസ്റ്റ് സെപ്ററംബര് മാസങ്ങളില് ഞാന് വീട്ടിലുണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. ഡ്യൂപ്ലിക്കേറ്റ് ഫോം കൊണ്ടുവന്നത് 20/09/2013ന് ശേഷമാണ്.. In the chief affidavit of PW1 she affirmed that 13/09/2013 തിയ്യതി പരാതിക്കാരി വീട്ടിലില്ലാത്തതാണ്. എന്റെ അമ്മ സീരിയസ്സായി മൌലാനാ ഹോസ്പിറ്റലില് അഡ്മിറ്റ് ആയിരിന്നതിനാല് വീട്ടില് അരും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. എന്റെ അമ്മ 29/09/2013 തീയ്യതി മരണപ്പെടുകയും ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്.
The entry dated 24-9-2013 in Ext B8 shows that 4th opposite party visited the house of complainant to get her sign in duplicate money order. In Ext A8 daughter in law of the complainant (PW1) mentioned കഴിഞ്ഞ 2013 സെപ്റ്റംബര് മാസത്തില് പോസ്റ്റ്മാനായ ശ്രീ സുബ്രമണ്യന് ഒരു പണമില്ലാത്ത മണി ഓര്ഡര് ഫോമുമായി എന്റെ വീട്ടില് വരികയും ആയത് അമ്മയെ കൊണ്ട് ഒപ്പിട്ടു തരുവാന് പറഞ്ഞു. പണമില്ലാത്തതുകൊണ്ട് ഒപ്പിട്ടു തരുവാന് പറ്റില്ലെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു. പിന്നീട് ഈ മണി ഓര്ഡര് ഞങ്ങള്ക്ക് കിട്ടുകയുണ്ടായില്ല.
Ext.A1 and B1 dated 28-10-13 shows that complainant and her family were not available in their house for two months. At the same time she deposed that one duplicate money order form was brought by the 4th opposite party after 20-9-2013. Contradictory statements were given by Mrs.Briji daughter in law of the complainant.
From the above circumstances we are not in a position to believe the version of the complainant or her daughter in law Briji. Moreover complainant did not adduce anything to prove that they were out of station for the month of September.
Ext.A8 was prepared and signed by the daughter in law of the complainant. As the said statement was prepared at the residence of the complainant in the presence of the inspector of posts, she ought to have signed the statement. She did not do so. Instead Mrs.Briji signed this statement. Moreover contradictory statements are given in the present complaint, chief examination affidavit of daughter in law and complainant and complaints and letters which were sent to postal authorities. While cross examination she has also given contradictory statements.
Ext.B19 and 20 proves that Rs.1600/- was credited under Unclassified receipts to the department. Ext B10 shows that 4th opposite party had waited till 30-9-2013 under the impression that the complainant would sign the duplicate money order. Opposite parties also contended that on 13-3-2014 4th opposite party along with branch Post Master Malmakkavu Post office went to the house of the complainant for payment with money order. But the payee refused to accept the payment. Ext.B10 proves this fact. While cross examination PW1 also admitted that ഡ്യൂപ്ലിക്കേറ്റ് മണി ഓര്ഡറുമായി പോസ്റ്റ്മാന് എന്നെ സമീപിച്ചിരുന്നു ഞാന് അതു വാങ്ങിയില്ല.
. All these aspects indicate that 4th opposite party had taken all his efforts to settle the issues with the complainant. 4th opposite party also submitted that subsequently on 4-6-2014 one Electronic Money Order with No.059621140603013852 for Rs.1600/- was received at Malamakkavu BO as payable to the complainant and was paid to the complainant on the same day. Hence there is no financial loss to the complainant. Moreover there is no evidence on the part of the complainant to prove that 4th opposite party fraudulently and willfully misappropriated the money order of the complainant. The burden was upon the complainant to prove that the opposite parties fraudulently or willfully misappropriated money. Moreover 4th opposite party submitted that he has 24 years of service as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliver and has ever come across with any adverse remarks during his entire service period. Complainant has not produced any evidence to rebut the submission of the 4th opposite party. In the light of the above discussions we are of the view that complainant is failed to prove her case. From all these aspects it is clear that daughter in law has some personal interest in filing and proceeding the complaint and complainant has no bonafides in filing the complaint.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of May 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to the Suptd.Ottapalam PO
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of reply letter dated 8/11/2013 to the complainant
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of letter sent by the complainant to Post Master General,
Kozhikkoe
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of reply letter issued by Post Master General to the
complainant dated 22/11/13
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of letter sent to the Secretary, Anakkara Panchayath dated
3/12/13
Ext.A6 – Photocopy of letter of Supdt.Ottapalam PO to the complainant dated
29/11/2013
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of letter of Supdt.Ottapalam PO to the complainant dated
7/3/14
Ext.A8 – Photocopy of statement of the complainant before the Ottapalam
IPPG dated 7/1/14
Ext.A9 – Photocopy of letter dated 13/2/14 of IPPG, Supdt.of Post Office,
Ottapalam
Ext.A10 – Photocopy of letter dated 10/3/2014 of Supdt.Ottapalam PO to
Adv.basheer Kumbidi
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Copy of complaint dated 28.10.2013 sent to Supdt., Ottapalam Post
Division Office
Ext.B2 – True copy of section 81 of Post office guide Part 1
Ext.B3 – True copy of letter dated 8/11/13 issued to Briji by Supdt.Ottapalam
Division Post Office
Ext.B4 – True copy of complaint dated 19/11/2013 sent to Post Master
General, Kozhikkode
Ext.B5 – True copy of letter dated 29/11/13 issued to Briji by Supdt.Ottapalam
Division Post Office
Ext.B6 – Copy of statement of P.P.Subramanian, Gramin Dak Sevak Mail deliver,
Malamalkkavu
Ext.B7 – True copy f statement n of K.P.Mohanan, Branch Postmaster (Retd.)
Malamakkavu
Ext.B8 – Copy of error book entries of Malamakkavu Branch Post Office dated
14/9/13, 24/9/13 and 30/9/13
Ext.B9 – A true copy of the report of the Inspector Post (Public Grievance)
Ext.B10 – True copy of Postman book containing the payee s signature for
having received the intimation for the duplicate money order issued.
Ext.B11 – True copy of Error Extract (EE) dated 13/3/2014.
Ext.B12 – True copy of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898
Ext.B12(a) – True copy of Branch Office Journal of Malmalkavu Branch PO
Ext.B13 – True copy of Malamakkavu BO Daily account dated 30/9/2013
Ext.B14 – True copy of branch office daily account of Malamakkavu BO dated
15/10/13
Ext.B15 – True copy of list of e-MOs printed at Kudallur Sub Post Office
Ext.B16 – True copy of Error Book Entry No.EE09 dated 14/09/13 and Entry
No.10 dated 24/9/13 of Kudallur SO
Ext.B17 – True copy of error book entry No.13 dated 30/9/13 of Kudallur SO
Ext.B18 – True copy of paid list of Kudallur SO e-MOs dtd.30/9/13
Ext.B19 – True copy of error book entry No.16 dated 15/10/15 of Kudallur SO
Ext.B20 – True copy of report of post master, Kudallur Post Office
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Briji.V
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 - Saradha
DW2 – Sasikumar
DW3 – Subramanian
DW4 – Mohana.K.P.
DW5 – K.P.Sudhir
Cost
No cost allowed.
