RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1434 of 2009

Superintendent of Post Offices, Postal Division,

Etah.                                                                  ..Appellant.

Versus

1- Smt. Siddhesh Kumari d/o Shri Deoki Nandan,

    Advocate, R/o Nagla Khokal, Post Office,

    Vigaur, District Etah.

2- Branch Manger, Peerless General Finance

    (Insurance) and Investment Co. Ltd., Branch

    Agra, 39(2) 4, Sanjay Palace, Sky Tower,

    Agra.                                                       ...Respondents.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Dr. Udai Veer Singh for the appellant.

Shri Sushil Kumar for the respondent.

Date  4.5.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.7.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Etah in complaint case No.149 of 2005, the appellant Superintendent of Post Offices has preferred the instant appeal. 

Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had opened an account with the OP no.1 Peerless General Finance Investment Co. Ltd. on 28.7.1993 wherein the complainant was to deposit two instalments in a year of Rs.900.00 each. The facility of depositing the instalments through money order was given by the Company. The complainant was to receive a sum of Rs.32,334.00 as matured amount but the Company

(2)

refunded only Rs.25,732.00. When the complainant enquired about it then he came to know that the instalment sent on 14.8.2002 did not reach the office of the OP no.1, therefore the amount was deducted. The complainant met the appellant/OP no.2 whereby the postal department got another form filled and the amount was paid to the Peerless Company on 24.12.2003. The complainant contacted the OPs for the default made by them but the amount deducted for non-payment of the instalment was not refunded to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint case in the District Forum, Etah where the OP no.2 filed their WS submitting therein that the complaint has been filed with wrong affidavit and that the OP was not responsible for any act done by the official. The concerned OP was not responsible for the delay in sending the money order under Section 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act and no deficiency has been committed by the OP concerned and the complaint should be dismissed. The ld. Forum, thereafter, passed the impugned order on 24.7.2009 as under:-

"परिवादिनी का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी नं01 को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह परिवादिनी को उसकी किश्‍त की धनराशि 9 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज प्राप्‍त होने की तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक एक माह के अदा करें, विपक्षी नं01 परिवादिनी को 6200 रू0 मय 9 प्रतिशत ब्‍याज के मैच्‍योरिटी तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक) एक माह में अदा करें।

विपक्षी नं01 व 2 परिवादिनी को एक एक हजार रूपया वाद मय के भी एक माह में अदा करें।"

Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred.

(3)

The main grounds of the appeal are that the ld. Forum has passed the order without any evidence. The fact is that the complainant herself was the defaulter. The record pertaining to the main order has already been destroyed, therefore, the appellant is not in a position to inquire into the matter of the complainant. There is no willful act or fraud on the part of the employees of the postal department, therefore, the complaint was barred under section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act. The ld. Forum has passed an erroneous order, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed and the appeal allowed. 

The respondent has filed the objections against the appeal submitting therein that it is a case of negligence of the postal official that the money order was lost and hence, when a complaint was made then the money order was sent to the respondent no.2 Peerless Company after processing the matter afresh which shows the negligence and mala-fide of the postal department. It is also submitted that the money order was received by Peerless Company on 24.12.2003, as is evident from the receipt therefore, there is clear cut deficiency on the part of the appellant, hence, they are responsible for the negligence and therefore, the impugned order is correct.

The appellant has filed replication to the objections filed by the respondent mentioning mainly therein that the respondent no.1 had to prove the willful act or fraud committed by the employees of the department of post in the transmission of the said money order in view of section 48 of the India Post Offices Act. It further submitted that the Union of India and the Chief Post

(4)

Master General, Lucknow were the necessary parties and in absence of them the complaint was not maintainable. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Heard arguments of the parties and perused the entire records.

New it is to be seen as to whether the complainant had sent the instalment of Rs.900.00 through money order to the Peerless Company or not and if so its consequences? It is also to be ascertained as to whether the appellant was not liable for the deficiency, if any, in sending the money order to the respondent no.2.

In this case, it is important to note that the complainant has clearly stated that a sum of Rs.900.00 was sent by him through money order to the Peerless Company but the same was not received by them as the appellant did not send the amount to the Company. Interestingly the OP no.2 in their WS filed before the Forum in the complaint case, did not accept the fact that any money order was sent by the complainant through their department much less the money order being sent with delay but the complainant has filed photo copies of the receipt which shows that Rs.857.00 was sent through the appellant Post Office on 14.8.2000. He has also filed the photo-copy of the amount received by the Peerless Company on 24.12.2003. So from these two receipts, it is clear that a sum of Rs.857.00 was sent to the Peerless Company and that the amount of Rs.857.00 was received by the Company on 24.12.2003.This amount was sent by Smt. Siddhesh Kumari, the complainant and this is an ample proof of the fact that the complainant had sent a

(5)

sum of Rs.857.00 through the money order to the Peerless Company and the same was received only on 24.12.2003. So it is astonishing as to why the postal department is not acknowledging these facts whereas there are clear cut receipts issued by them only. There is obviously no answer to this question. This again gives credibility to the contention of the complainant that the amount sent was not sent by the appellant to the Peerless Company whereby her last instalment of Rs.900.00 was not credited and in consequences thereof the Peerless Company did not give the total maturity amount to the complainant. It is only when the complainant raised the issue with the postal authority that the amount which should have been disbursed in August, 2002 could be paid only on 24.12.2003 i.e. with the delay of one year and 4 months and for this default the appellant are squarely responsible. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not be held responsible as there is no mala-fide on the part of the appellant officials in sending the money order with delay in disbursing the money order. Ld. counsel for the appellant has cited the case decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC in IV (2007)CPJ 123 (NC), Tika Ram Khanal vs. Indian Postal Department, where the money order delayed due to fraud or wilful act or default of any particular office or post-office not proved hence, the complaint was not maintainable but the order passed in the complaint was not interfered by the Hon'ble NCDRC. First of all the facts of the case are entirely different as in the aforesaid case delay had occurred beyond the limits of

(6)

India. Besides, in the instant case, there is an obvious default of an official of the Postal Department as there is firstly an attempt to discredit the contention of the complainant that no money order was sent by the complainant and secondly, because when the complainant raised a hue and cry then the appellant officials processed the matter and sent the amount on 24.12.2003 to the Peerless Company. So the entire conduct of the officials of the appellant smacks of wilful act whereby the appellant can not take refuge under section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act. Therefore, the appellant is liable for deficiency in service. Another argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the complaint was bad because of non-joinder of parties but we find that there is no substance in this argument as the relief sought was against the postal department of Etah, who had conducted the default and therefore, the complaint can not said to be bad for mis-joinder of the parties.

          On the basis of the discussions made above, we find that the ld. Forum has passed a reasoned order and there is no occasion for interference in that and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                   (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                        Member

Jafri PA II Court No.4