National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Post Master Ranipet Ho & Anr. vs N.B. Janakiraman on 27 September, 2001
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 OF 1995 (From the order dated 23.12.94 in Case No.229/1994 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) Post Master Ranipet HO & Anr. .. Appellants Vs. Shri N.B. Janakiraman .. Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER Indian Post Office Act - telegraphic money order - Section 48 ( c ), default - wilful - award of damages upheld. For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Sabharwal, Advocate For the respondent : N E M O ORDER
Dated the 27th September, 2001 PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA (PRESIDENT) Respondent was the complainant before the State Commission. He sent a telegraphic money order of Rs.400/- from the Post Office Ranipet, Arakkonam to his son at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He paid Rs.29/- as commission. Money order was not delivered to his son. The amount was required by the son to meet his expenses of boarding and lodging at Saharanpur where he was working. Complaining deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties-appellants being the Post Master, Ranipet and Head Post Master, Saharanpur, complainant-respondent filed complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs.
On notice being issued petitioners did appear and admitted the receipt of Rs.29/- as charges for transmission of the telegraphic money order. It was stated that the money order was delivered to the addressee on 23.8.94 nearly two months later. Appellants claim that the complaint was barred under Section 48 (c) of the Indian Post Office Act, which according to the appellant gave immunity to the Government and the Post Office for any default in the transmission of the telegraphic money order. It could however, be not disputed that there was in fact deficiency in service. State Commission after examining whole aspect of the matter directed payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved, opposites parties have appealed.
Telegraphic money order could have been paid immediately and not after a lapse of almost two months. Section 48 (c) of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:
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) ..
(b)
(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 wilful act or default of such officer; or
(d)
(e) A bare perusal of Section 48(c) would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants. If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the Post Office, appellants will certainly be liable. It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default. But when the default is so extensive like in the present case no proof or evidence on the part of complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of these terms or to any judgement for the purpose. We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As a matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act. No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same, respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment. The telegraphic money order was meant for his son who was at a far off place in Uttar Pradesh. Instead of taking action against its officers for their default and wilful act, appellants have chosen to file this appeal questioning the order of the State Commission. We find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Since the respondent is not represented, there shall be no order as to cost.
.J. (D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT ..J. (C.L. CHAUDHRY) MEMBER ..J. (J.K. MEHRA) MEMBER .
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER ..
( B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER
2002
(1) SCALE
SYNCO
INDUSTRIES .
Appellant
VS.
STATE
BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ORS. . Respondents CORAM : S.P. BARUCHA, CJI., U.C. BANERJEE AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.
Complaint requiring detailed evidence to be led to prove the claim, the damages and expenses - cannot be heard and disposed in a summary fashion - National Commission not an appropriate forum.
1. The present appellants moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging that the respondents had been guilty of deficiency in service in that they had, without good reason, frozen the sanctioned working facilities of the appellant without prior intimation. In this behalf, the appellant, sought a direction to the first respondent to prepare a funding package to re-start the appellants oil division and to grant waiver of interest, damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakhs to cover cost of traveling, man days lost and other expenses incurred by the appellant in pursuing the matter with the respondents. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint saying, The complaint is against the bank, whether the bank is entitled to reduce the loan facilities or not. We do not consider it to be a fit case to be tried under the Consumer Protection Act. The Original Petition is dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to go (to) the Civil Court or any other forum, if so advised.
2. Against this order of dismissal of the complaint, the appellant has filed this appeal and it has been referred to a Bench of three Judges because it was felt that the question raised was one of importance.
3. Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of traveling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is an appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum.
4. The civil appeal is dismissed, with costs in favour of the first respondent.