State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master, Post Office, Malerkotla vs Natia Nand Yadav @ Nand Lal on 14 October, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1125 of 2006
Date of Institution: 04.09.2006.
Date of Decision: 14.10.2011.
1. Post Master, Post Office, Malerkotla.
2. Superintendent, District Post Office, Sangrur.
3. Regional Manager, Post Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Natia Nand Yadav @ Nand Lal S/o Mahro, R/o village Madhu Malti Ghat,
P.O. Mokhispur, District East Champaran, Bihar, now C/o Harpreet Singh S/o
Avtar Singh, village Madevi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
28.07.2006 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate for
Sh. Namit Kumar, Advocate with
Ms Jaspinder Kaur, Consumer Inspector,
Post Office.
For the respondent : Sh. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Post Master, Post Office, Malerkotla and others, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 28.07.2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Natia Nand Yadav, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, on grounds that on 13.11.2003, he through his friend Vidaya Nand sent a Money Order of Rs.1000/- in favour of his wife Giatry Devi at First Appeal No.1125 of 2006 2 Madhu Malti Ghat, P.O. Mokhlispur, District Eastern Champaran, Bihar through postal receipt no.B-1816 dated 13.11.2003, but the same did not reach at the address of the wife of the respondent and a number of requests were made to appellant no.1, but of no use.
3. The respondent moved an application on 16.12.2003 to the office of appellant no.1, but no response was given. Again on 25.02.2004, another application was moved, but again appellant no.2 did not give proper response. Again on 20.03.2004, respondent sent an application to the office of appellant no.2 through courier vide receipt no.539 dated 20.03.2004, but appellant no.1 or appellant no.2 did not give any information about the Money Order sent by the respondent.
4. The wife of the respondent was suffering from serious ailment and was in dire need of money, but due to the negligence and fault of the appellants, she could not get the money and suffered a lot. A legal notice dated 17.09.2005 was also sent to the appellants and appellant no.2 sent the reply and the appellants are liable to pay compensation and costs and refund the amount of the Money Order, and prayed that the appellants be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation, Rs.2000/- as inconvenience and Rs.1000/- for harassment, Rs.1000/- for expenses of the applications and fair for travelling for Sangrur, Rs.2000/- for loss of work, Rs.2500/- as costs of complaint, totaling Rs.13,500/- plus Rs.1000/- as refund of Money Order along with interest @ 2% per month.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, legal objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable. The Sub Post Master, Semra, Post Office, East Champaran, District Mothihari, Bihar has not been impleaded as party. The complaint is also not maintainable u/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 as well as under section 48 of the said Act. Cause of action arose on 13.11.2003 and the present complaint is time barred. The respondent is not a consumer and does not fall under the definition of the 'consumer' as per the Act.
First Appeal No.1125 of 2006 3
6. On merits, it was admitted that Vidiya C/o Avtar Singh, resident of village Madevi, Malerkotla, booked a Money Order for one Giatry Devi for Rs.1000/- on 13.11.2003 and the payment was made to Smt. Giatry Devi on 19.11.2003. On the complaint of Vidiya, necessary inquiries were initiated and duplicated Money Order was prepared and sent to the office of payment in favour of the payee and as per the report of the office of Sub Post Master, Semra, the Money Order in question was paid on 19.11.2003. After the receipt of the notice, reply was given, reiterating that the payment has been made. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund Rs.1000/- as costs of Money Order along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.11.2003 till realization, Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.07.2006, the appellants have come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the cause of action arose to the respondent on 13.11.2003, whereas the present complaint was filed on 30.11.2005 and is barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. It was further contended that the amount of the Money Order has already been paid to the wife of the respondent as per the report of the Sub Post Master, Semra Post Office, East Champaran, Bihar, Ex.R3. U/s 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the appellants are not First Appeal No.1125 of 2006 4 liable for any loss, mis-delivery or delay or damage and u/s 48 of the said Act, no proceedings lie in respect of the Money Order. The District Forum has not taken into consideration all these facts and the impugned order is wrong and the appeal may be accepted.
12. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that Sections 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 are not helpful in any manner, as the present case is a case of non-delivery of the amount. The respondent is a consumer as he availed the services of the appellants for consideration. The order of the District Forum is well reasoned and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire record thoroughly.
15. The point of limitation was also raised before the District Forum and the District Forum has relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Lata Construction & Ors. Vs Rameshghochandra Ramniklal Shan & Anr.", 2000 JRC-154 as well as ruling of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Post Master Ranipet H.O. & Anr. Vs N.B. Janakiraman", 2002 (2) CLT-468 and of this Commission in case "Post Master General Chandigarh & Anr. Vs Adalat Chauhan", 2004(1) CPC-
648. The limitation was to run from the delivery of the Money Order or the return thereof but till date, neither the Money Order was delivered nor it was returned the sender. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent is very much within limitation.
16. The other defence taken by the appellants is that the amount of the Money Order has been paid to the wife of the respondent and on the complaint filed by the respondent, the report was called from the Sub Post Office, East Champaran vide letter dated 21.09.2005 and vide report Ex.R2 and certificate Ex.R3, the said amount was paid to the wife of the respondent. The appellants have not proved any document or the receipt obtained from First Appeal No.1125 of 2006 5 the wife of the respondent, having received the Money Order amount. Vide Ex.R4, it was mentioned that the Money Order along with issue-list has been destroyed, being more than one year old on 05.05.2005. Once, it was in the notice of the appellants and the concerned Sub Post Office that the delivery of the Money Order is in dispute and the matter is pending in the Consumer Forum, then the said documents should not have been destroyed and now, no authenticity can be attached to the above reports and certificate which are not based on any cogent evidence. Mere writing that the Money Order has been delivered, is not sufficient to prove the delivery of the same. The appellants can not take refuge of sections 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, as in the present case, there was neither delay in sending the Money Order, nor any wrong payment was made but in the present case, no payment has been made to the payee.
17. The payment was only of Rs.1000/- but the District Forum has directed not only the refund of Rs.1000/-, but has also awarded interest, compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned above. Once the interest has been awarded, then compensation is not required to be awarded and the litigation cost is also required to be reduced.
18. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 28.07.2006 under appeal is modified to the extent that the order for awarding of compensation of Rs.5000/- is set aside and amount of litigation expenses of is reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/-. Remaining part of the order is upheld. No order as to cost.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.4130/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. Out of this amount, the amount after calculating the interest on Rs.1000/- @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 13.11.2003 till the date of this order be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the appellants, and the remaining amount along with interest First Appeal No.1125 of 2006 6 accrued, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.10.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member October 14, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)-