RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.167 of 2010

1- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

2- Sub Post Office, Ayodhya through

    Sub Post Master, Post Office, Ayodhya.  ….Appellants.

Versus

Ayodhya Prasad s/o Sri Bajrangi Prasad,

R/o Radha Bihari Bhawan, Ram Ki Pairi,

Ayodhya, Pargana- Haweli Avadh,

Tehsil: Sadar, District: Faizabad.                …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

For the appellants:  Sri S.P. Singh.

For the respondent: None.    

Date    16.6.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.8.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Faizabad in complaint case No.35 of 2009, the appellants Senior Superintendent of Post Offices  and another has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss.

(2)

          From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Shir Ayodhya Prasad s/o Sri Bajrangi Prasad sent a Money Order on 18.3.2008 bearing receipt no.515 from Sub Post Office, Ayodhya, Faizabad to Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, Advocate, Allahabad. The appellants Post Offices failed to deliver the aforesaid amount to the addressee and no cogent reason was assigned for this misfeasance. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, the complainant filed case no.35 of 2009 before the ld. DCDRF, Faizabad for redressal of his grievances. The complaint was allowed on 28.8.2009 and the appellants Post Offices were directed to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.700.00 with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint till its full and final payment. It also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 as compensation and Rs.500.00 towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Post Offices.

The appeal was taken up for hearing on 16.5.2016. The ld. counsel for the appellant Sri S.P. Singh was present. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. There was no application for adjournment either. Since the appeal was pending for more than 5 years for disposal, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, we deemed it appropriate to decide the appeal on merit. Accordingly, Sri S.P. Singh was heard exparte.

It was argued that the Forum below had no

(3)

jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of Section 48of the India Post Offices Act, 1898 (Act no.6 of 1898). Section 48 of the Act provides that:

48- Exemption from liability in respect of money orders. – No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against [the Government] or any officer or 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 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 wilful 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].

It was also argued that the Forum below ignored the provisions contained u/s 6 of the aforesaid Act and passed the impugned order without any rhyme or reason. It was, therefore, prayed that the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss. We have given due consideration on all aspects of the

(4)

matter and have gone through the impugned judgment.

The Forum below has directed the appellants to return the amount of Money Order, sent by the respondent/complainant as the same was not paid to the addressee. It is not a case of wrong payment caused by incorrect or incomplete information as to the name or address of the payee. It is not even a case of refusal on delayed payment on account of neglect, omission or mistake. It is not even a case of wrong payment. Therefore, the provision of Section 48 of the Act is not attracted. It is simply a case of non-payment and refusal to return the money. Hence, Section 6 of the Act is also not attracted.   It also directed that he was entitled for interest on the principal amount from the date of filing the complaint till its full and final payment. There is no remiss in the order.  Section 48 or Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act does not empower the Post Office to deny refund of Money Order which could not be paid to the Payee. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the Post Offices, prima-facie, committed misfeasance/non-feasance in the public office in not delivering the Money Order to the payee. No cogent reason has been assigned for not doing so. The judgment and order passed by the Forum below is appropriate and is correct from all aspects of the matter and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same.

However, the operative part of the judgment requires some modification. The Forum below has granted interest

(5)

at the rate of 9% p.a. on principal amount from the date of filing the complaint till its full and final payment. There is no remiss in this part of the operative portion. However, in addition to it, the Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000.00 to the complaint as compensation. The respondent/ complainant is not entitled to receive both. Since he is getting interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till its full and final payment therefore, it would be inappropriate to grant his compensation as well. Accordingly, the grant of compensation of Rs.2,000.00 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

ORDER

          The appeal is partly allowed and the grant of compensation of Rs.2,000.00 the respondent/complainant is set aside. Remaining part of the judgment and order is confirmed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.2