State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master, Nagakudaiyan Branch, ... vs N.Dhayanithi (Retd. Teacher), ... on 25 October, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member. F.A.No. 443/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.14/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam] TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011. 1. Post Master, Nagakudaiyan Branch, Vedaranniyam Division, Nagapattinam, Nagai District. 2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Pattukkottai, Pattukkottai District. .. Appellants/opposite parties /Vs/ N.Dhayanithi (Retd. Teacher), No.2/61, Nadunsalai, Nagakudaiyan, Vedaranniyam Divisin, Nagapattinam. .. Respondent/Complainant The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties : M/s. S.Ravichandran, Advocates. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Called absent. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants.
2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming for direction to refund the money order amount of Rs.625/- and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency of service by the opposite parties and for costs.
3. Complainant had sent the electricity consumption charges of Rs.220/- for his house and for his friend Parthasarathy in all Rs.220/- through money order on 4.7.2007 to the Junior Engineer, TNEB, Kariyapattinam 614 806 by paying money order charges Rs.11/- and obtained receipt for the same. The electricity charges are to be paid on or before 15.7.07.
But the same was not delivered till that date and thereby the electric supply was disconnected by the E.B. persons and thereafter he got reconnection after paying the electricity charges with penalty of Rs.63/- for him and Rs.61/- for his friend in all totaling Rs.625/- including money order charges and travel expenses Rs.50/-. Hence he complained the same to the opposite party through the District Consumer Protection Council and by sending a letter on 26.7.07 for which a reply was received on 31.7.07 stating that the matter is being looked and thereafter another letter dated 13.10.07 was sent by the consumer council and as no reply was received. Hence complaint is filed before the District Forum claiming the reliefs as above.
4. The opposite parties contended that the money order was correctly dispatched to Kariyapattinam Sub Post Office through Thiruvarur sorting which was received only on 6.8.07 and the Sub Post Office, Kariyapattinam is necessary party to the case.
Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of parties. Only for the higher value of more than Rs.400/- stage by stage movement used to be recorded and in this case it was not done since the value below Rs.400/-.
Appellant refused to receive back the money order amount and it is under safe custody with the opposite parties.
As per the Postal Telegraph Services Rules no complaints or legal action will be taken unless negligent and willful or fraud act is proved. Before giving reply for the subsequent letter dated 24.1.08, the complainant filed the complaint and there is no liability on the part of Postal Department. Hence complaint to be dismissed.
5. After considering both sides materials the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to refund the money order amount Rs.220/- and the money order commission Rs.11/- and the penalty paid by complainant Rs.124/- and expenses for travel Rs.50/- in all Rs.405/- and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal it is contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking in to the provisions under Section 48-C of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and non joinder of parties. Hence complaint to be dismissed.
7. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions it is not in dispute that the complainant has sent Rs.220/- by paying Rs.11/- as money order charges by money order to the Junior Engineer, E.B., Kariyapattinam Post on 4.7.07 and it was not delivered to the addressee till 15.7.07 and thereafter the complainant was compelled to pay the electricity consumption charges with penalty which are all proved by the complainant through his documents. It is also not disputed by the opposite parties that the money order was not delivered till 15.7.07 and as per the version it was reached to the Kariyapattinam Sub Post Office only on 6.8.07 since the stage by stage movements was not recorded the reason for delay in receiving the amount by Kariyapattinam Sub Post Office could not be explained. In those circumstances it is clear that the complainant was made to suffer for non delivery of money order in time and it is also stated by the opposite parties that the refused money order amount is lying with them in safe custody, since the money order was not delivered to the addressee complainant is entitled to receive back the same from the opposite parties. Regarding the question of compensation and the legal action against the opposite parties it is contended by the opposite parties that as per the Indian Post Office Act 1898 falling in Chapter IX Under Sec.48 dealing with money orders provides for exemption from liability in respect of money order in certain cases.
The details of the same is as follows :-
48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders- No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of
(a) anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter, or
(b) the wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or (c ) the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by or on account of, any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by, or on the part of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer ; or
(d) any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order; or
(e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government.
And as per the above provision in Clause C the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of, in accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of an officer of the Post Office or for any other cause whatsoever other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer any suit or legal proceedings could be barred the Government or any officer in respect of the circumstances mentioned in Clause (a) to (e). Unless fraud or willful act, or default of the officer of the Post Office is alleged no legal proceedings can be instituted. There is no doubt in our case that the non delivery of money order falls under Clause C and there was no fraud or willful default against the opposite parties was pleaded and the non delivery of money order within the specified date as explained by the opposite parties seems to be beyond the control of their side and thereby they are entitled to claim exemption from liability for the same. Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the rulings reported in the Revision petition No.1392/2003 decided by the Honble National Commission, New Delhi dated 8.8.03 in the case of Tika Ram Khanai Vs. Indian Postal Department and also pointed out the order passed by this Commission in F.A.No.355/2008, on the basis of the provision under Sec.48 of the Indian Post Office Act in which also the plea of the opposite parties accepted by this Commission and thereby in view of the provision under Sec.48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 the appeal to be allowed and as the District Forum without going in to the provisions of the Act erroneously allowed the complaint it is liable to be set aside. But in the facts and circumstances of the case since the money order amount is with the opposite parties which complainant is entitled to receive back the same except for the direction to that effect in other respect the order of the District Forum to be set aside by allowing the appeal in part.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam in C.C.No.14/2008 dated 27.11.09 as follows :- (a) The order of the District Forum is hereby set aside. (b) The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.220/- of the money order amount to the complainant.
(c) To pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs and (d) No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//Post Office.