Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/5/2018

Rishi Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/05/2018
Date of Institution	:	02/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	03/05/2018

 

Rishi Raj son of Late Sh. Hem Raj, Resident of H.No.1056, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     The Senior Superintendent, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2]     Head Post Master, General Post Office, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for OPs along with Sh. Sushil Kumar, Public Relation Officer.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, the Complainant sent a Money Order of Rs.2100/- to his sister namely, Smt. Krishna Wanti w/o Late Sh. Kharaiti Lal Batra, M-56A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on 07.08.2017, by paying the requisite charges. However, to the amazement of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the said money order, and refunded Rs.2100/- to the Complainant on 20.10.2017, without assigning any reasons. The Complainant received the amount under protest and lodged a Complaint with the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         The Opposite Parties in their joint written statement have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that they received the money order at Delhi Head Post Office on 10.08.2017 and on the same day, the area Postman visited the addressee at the given address. However, inspite of ringing the doorbell, nobody came out of the house inspite of waiting for at least 5 minutes by the said Postman. Accordingly, the said money order was returned to the Sender i.e. the Complainant. It has been asserted that at the time of return of the said money order to the Complainant on 20.10.2017, he was duly intimated that if he wants to resend the same money order then he can do so by not receiving it back and the same will be tried to be delivered to the addressee or in the alternate he can make a Complaint to the Customer Care Centre for any kind of grievance. However, the Complainant duly accepted the said money order and did not make any kind of Complaint regarding the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
6.         The main grievance of the Complainant is that after making a request for sending a Money Order of Rs.2100/- along with charges of Rs.105/- as fee, the same was returned back by the Opposite Parties after 2½ months, without assigning any reasons.  We are not impressed by the stand taken by the Opposite Parties that nobody came out of the house after the Postman rang the doorbell, for the reason that the Opposite Parties have not produced on record the affidavit of the concerned Postman. In the absence of the same, the contentions of the Opposite Parties are hollow and deserve no merit. Moreover, the self-serving affidavit of Opposite Party No.1 is not sufficient to prove the said fact. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties, the Money Order could not be delivered to the addressee and to cover up their own wrongs, the Opposite Parties have coined a cooked up story, which to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 
7.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]        Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]        Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

8.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-paras [a] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [b] above. 
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                        

03.05.2018

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                           Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”