Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/565

joseph, post master, sub post office - Complainant(s)

Versus

issac - Opp.Party(s)

c s rajmohan

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.565/14

JUDGMENT DATED:31.05.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

1. Joseph, Postmaster,

Sub-Post Office, Adimali P.O,

 Idukki District, PIN-685 561.

 

2. Sherin, Postal Assistant,

Sub Post Office, Adimali,                                                  : APPELLANTS

Idukki District, PIN-685 561.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Rajmohan C.S)

 

            Vs.

 

     1.    Issac, S/o Varkey, Proprietor,

M.P. Tours & Travels, Adimali,

R/at Maracheri Putheyath House,

Mannamkandam P.O, 200 Acre,

Idukki District, PIN-685 561.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Asok Kumar J.S)

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2. Department of Post,

Rep. by The Post Master General –

For the Kerala State, TVPM.

Dep. Of Post, Rep. by Superintendent,

Thodupuzha P.O, Thodupuzha.

 

JUDGMENT 

JUSTICE SHRI.  P.Q. BARKATH  ALI,  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 3 and 4 in CC.390/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated August 25, 2014 directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant and a cost of Rs.1000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant is a retired Government employee and he is engaged in social service.  He is also running a business in the name and style M.P. Tours and Travels at Adimali.  On October 12, 2013 one Smt.Leela Babu, Kulathumkara requested for help, as she was hospitalised at  Government General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.  Complainant sent an e-MO through Admali Post Office where the 3^rd opposite party was working as Postmaster noting her mobile number.   On October 12, 2013 the e-MO was sent to the patient in the hospital address.  Complainant paid Rs.1050/- with the appellants.  But the addressee informed the complainant that money order did not reach her till October 19, 2013.  Though complainant contacted the first opposite party it did not yield any result.  On October 19, 2013 the Postman of Admali Post office served intimation to the complainant to collect the money order.  Complainant sent one Mr.P.J.Babu to receive the money order which they did not give.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint return of the e-MO amount and also for compensation. 

3.      Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the Department of Post Offices represented by Postmaster General of Kerala and Superintendent of Post, Idukki Division.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 are Postmaster and Postal Assistant of Sub Post office, Admali.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  It is admitted that complainant booked one e-MO from Adimali Post office on October 12, 2013 for an amount of Rs.1000/- payable to Smt.Leela, patient, General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.  The amount was paid to the payee on October 28, 2013.  The delay occurred due to the technical problem in the electronic money order central server located at the Centre for Excellence in Postal Technoloy, Mysore.  The e-MO message was transmitted only on October 19, 2013 after rectification of the server error.  The booking clerk of Admali Post office due to pressure of work at the counter mistakenly noted the address of the sender as payee.  Hence money order was transmitted to Adimali itself.  It was again re-transmitted to the payee’s address.  Pin code shown in the money order was initially Trivandrum-1.  The letter is sent to Vanchiyoor P.O which is the delivery jurisdiction of General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.  By that time the payee was discharged from the hospital.   The amount was finally paid to the addressee only on October 28, 2013.  The staff of the opposite parties did not behave badly to the complainant.  The delay occurred due to the above facts.  The amount was not given to the person named P.T.Babu as the e-MO was already transmitted to the payee.  Section 48 ( c) of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 clearly says that:

“No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of 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 for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer”.

          The officer of the Post Office is not responsible for the delay.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.P1 and P2 and Opposite produced Exts.R1 to R15 before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      It is admitted that complainant had booked one e-MO from Adimaly Post Office on October 12, 2013 for an amount of Rs.1000/- payable to one Smt.Leela, patient, General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and it was paid to the payee only on October 28, 2013.  Opposite parties admit that there is delay in paying the amount to the payee.  Their case is that the booking clerk at Adimaly post office due to pressure of work at the counter had stated the address of the sender as the payee’s address and therefore e-MO was transmitted to the Adimaly Post office itself which was again re-transmitted to the payee’s address.   They would also contend that the pin code shown in e-MO form was not correct which also caused the delay. It is clear from the above that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the money order to the payee.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.      The Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- .

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.