Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/758/2015

Hakumat Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/758/2015
Date of Institution	:	10/11/2015
Date of Decision	:	18/07/2016

 

 

Hakumat Rai S/o Late Sh. Kirpa Ram, R/o H.No. 2182, Ground Floor, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

(1)    Post Office, Sector 47, Chandigarh, through its Post Master.

 

(2)    Department of Posts, Sector 17, through its Chief Post Master General.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR.MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

1.         Sh. Hakumat Rai, who is a senior citizen (hereinafter called the Complainant) has brought this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Post Office & Anr., (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had sent a money order to his brother-in-law Sh.Ashok Kumar Khosla, Jaintipur (Amritsar) for Rs.1,000/- on account of Karva Chauth of his sister and paid Rs.50/- as commission to the Opposite Parties on 12.10.2015 vide Receipt Annexure C-1. However, on enquiry from his relative, the Complainant was shocked to know that he has not received the said money order. The Complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No.1 upon which he was assured that the money order would be delivered in a day or two or the amount of Rs.1,050/- would be refunded to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again, but nothing positive could come out. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         In their written statement, Opposite Parties, while admitting the basic facts of the case, has pleaded that the matter was examined and Web Complaint was lodged instantly on 23.11.2015 and necessary enquiries were made with Amritsar Post Office. On reply received from Amritsar, with regard to non-delivery of Electronic Money Order (EMO) No. 091504151012012502 dated 12.10.2015, orders for issuance of duplicate EMO was made in favour of Payee and the same was issued on 27.11.2015 and paid to the Payee at Amritsar on 30.11.2015. While denying all other allegations and pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the Parties.
7.         The case of the Complainant is that he sent a money order to his brother-in-law at Amritsar for Rs.1,000/- on account of Karva Chauth of his sister and accordingly paid Rs.50/- as commission to the Opposite Parties on 12.10.2015 as per Annexure C-1. However, when the said money order was not received by his relatives, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, who assured that the same shall be delivered in a day or two, otherwise the amount of Rs.1050/- shall be refunded to him. The grouse of the Complainant is that neither the money order was delivered nor the amount of Rs.1050/- was refunded to him.   
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant is not a Consumer and there is no mistake on their part. Further, it has been contended that as per Section 48 of IPO Act, 1898, no suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office. It has also been contended that due to some technical snag the information received at Data Center got stuck i.e. the information regarding money order could not be transmitted further to the payee post office at Amritsar. Consequently, for effecting its payment Amritsar Post Office could not retrieve the data and could not print the Electronic Money Order (EMO).
9.         So far as the question of immunity of Section 48 of IPO Act is concerned, the same is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, Rs.50/- was taken by the Opposite Parties as service charges/ commission for the said money order, therefore, the Complainant is a consumer qua the Opposite Parties.
10.         It is pertinent to note that the present Complaint was filed on 10.11.2015 by the Complainant and till that date the money order was not delivered. It was only after the filing of the Complaint that the Opposite Parties issued duplicate money order and delivered the said money order on 30.11.2015. An intimation dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure C-2) was sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties in this regard.  Indeed, by the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, the motive of the Complainant behind sending the money order to his relative, was subjugated. It is thus conclusively proved that the Opposite Parties were negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the Complainant, which certainly has caused immense mental and physical harassment to him.
11.         In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

[a]    To make payment of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]    To make payment of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

12.         The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.[a] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

13.

Announced

18/07/2016                                                                            Sd/-    

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER