State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Superintendent Of Post Office ... vs Shri. J.C.Baruah on 24 October, 1997
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MEGHALAYA, SHILLONG C.A. NO.11(M) OF 1997 Senior Superintendent of Post Office .......... Appellant Meghalaya Division, Shillong -Vs- Shri. J.C.Baruah ..................Respondents B E F O R E MR JUSTICE D.N.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT THE LEARNED MEMBER SMTI.M.R.MAWLONG For the Appellant Mr.B.P.Dutta Respondent NEMO Date of Order 24.10.1997 ORDER
Heard Mr. B.P.dutta, the learned counsel for the Appellant, post office Shillong. The appeal is directed and arising out of judgment and order 3-5-97 passed by the learned District Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. The complainant sent Rs.300/- by money order on 10-10-94 to one Upen Baruah, Tamuli Goan, P.O. Morijhanjivia Jhanji, Assam but when the money did not reach to the addressee the complainant lodged complaint to the appellant and thereafter made this complaint Petition before the District Forum. During the proceeding the complainant examined himself before the District Forum. The complainant informed the District Forum on 17-5-97 that the opposite party had sent a duplicate money order of Rs.300/- to his address and he had drawn the money and accepted the same. The opposite party did not submit its show cause before the District Forum. The District Forum before assessing the materials on record observed as follows:
.. By sending the duplicate money order it is apparent that the money order in question was lying with then department illegally for a period of three years and when the complainant repeatedly asked for his money to the higher authority, they did not even reply. By keeping the M.O. illegally beyond its time for a long period without giving any satisfactory reasons compelling the complainant to a complaint, is a matter of utmost negligence. We are of the view that the negligence of the O.P. and the casual way they handled the consumers right amply proves utter collapse of professionalism with total disregard to the consumers interest.
.. For utter failure on the part of the O.P. we are of the view that the complainant should be awarded Rs.1,000/- to be payable by the O.P. together with an interest at 18% within a period of one month from the date of M.O. till payment of duplicate M.O. failing which at further interest at 12% shall accrue Hence the appeal.
According to the Department, they could not contest the case effectively before the District forum in view of the fact that the counsel who represented the department without submitting show cause before the District Forum. According to the Department the said counsel was relieved from the charge of his office. The Departmental Officer on 30-5-97 before the disposal of the case preferred the show cause before the Forum but the Forum did not accept the show cause stating that the case was ready for judgment. Mr.Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the Department submitted that under the Departmental manual a claim was to be lodged within 12 months and in the case in hand since the complaint was made after the lapse of 12 months and therefore the said matter ought not to have considered by the District Forum. Mr.Dutta further submitted that the Department was not at fault in not delivering the money order on the other hand it was sheer negligence on the part of the complainant who gave a wrong address to the Department. Mr.Dutta also submitted that for transmission of money order a sum of Rs.15/-(fifteen) was charged for which the Department was saddled with a cost of Rs.1,000/- for the alleged negligence. Mr.Dutta, the learned counsel has brought our attention to the Departmental circular. Mr. Dutta in course of his submission also brought our attention to Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 claiming exemption for liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage. The Complainant/Respondent Sri.J.C.Baruah appeared in person and contested the appeal. The Claimant/respondent submitted that there was no fault on his part in describing the address in question. In support of his contention Mr.Baruah produced before us some letters written, one in post card and three in envelopes duly stamped which are kept in records by the Forum. Regarding limitation Mr.Baruah submitted that he lodged complaint on 14-3-95 to the concerned Post Office where the money order was sent and therefore the question of delay or negligence did not arise. Mr.Baruah, further pointed out that the concerned post office forwarded his complaint to the Sr. Superintendent of the Post Office by his memo dated 10-9-95 which was a part of the complaint proceedings.
We have heard at length the learned Counsel Mr.Dutta and Mr.Baruah, Complainant/Respondent. At any rate, the complaint was lodged in time as laid down in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint petition therefore could not be rejected as time barred. The contention of Shri.Dutta, the learned counsel was that the amount of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) only with interest against money order charge of Rs.15/- was disproportionate and arbitrary could not be accepted by this Forum. Before analyzing the contention of Shri.Dutta, the learned counsel claiming exemption under Section 6, it would be pertinent to look to the provision of the said Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is quoted below :
6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage (The Government) not incur any liability by reasons of the loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the (Central government) as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default ..
The said provision was enacted with a view to exempt the Department in certain circumstances but the department could not be exonerated for the acts committed fraudulently or for the willful act or default. The department in the instant case on their own admitted the fault and accordingly refunded the amount by the duplicate money order to the complainant accepting their liability on that count and that payment was made only after filling of the complaint petition. The contention therefore deserves no merit.
We have given our anxious consideration on the entire issue and after considering all aspects of the matter we do not find any error in the conclusion of the learned District Forum even after considering all the documentary as well as oral evidence and also hearing the learned counsel for the Department.
The Appeal petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
.
Member President Member