Date of filing: 30-12-2016 Date of order : 07-7-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Friday, 7th day of July 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 03 / 2017
Sri B. Madhusudhana, Age 44 years,
Head Master, Gowtham E.M. School,
Madanapalli Road, Rayachoty Town and Mandal,
Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Superintendent, Post offices, Kadapa Division,
Head Post office, Kadapa town, Near Kalakeshetram,
Kadapa – 516 001.
2. The Sub-Post Master, Sub Post Office,
Sanjeeva Nagar Colony, Rayachoty town and Mandal,
Kadapa Disrict. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 30-6-2017 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri G. Gurrappa, Govt. Pleader for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) in vernacular language (Telugu) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to refund money order amount of Rs. 552/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant on 30-4-2015 sent Rs. 525/- through an electronic money order to M/s Deepthi Publication, Kothapet, Tenali, A.P. for study material of Polytechnic entrance exam from Rayachoty by paying Rs. 27/- as postal charges. But till 20-5-2015 he did not received any material from M/s Deepthi Publication. On enquiry he came to know that money order was not received by M/s Deepthi Publication. On 21-5-2015 he enquired the postal authorities from where he sent Electronic Money order, who told that they will enquire and say in 3 days. He reported on 3-6-2015 in written, he also addressed a letter to the Divisional Post Office, Kadapa on 5-6-2015. He also approached Sanjeevanagar Post Office, Rayachoty on 15-6-2015 & 16-6-2015 and they confirmed that the money order was not received by the addressee. On 17-6-2015 he received letter to give his consent to send duplicate E.M.O for which he gave his consent. He received letter dt. 26-6-2015 stating that E.M.O sent to M/s Deepthi Publication, Tenali Rs. 525/- was not reached due to technical reasons and the amount is Rs. 525/- is being returned to him. But he did not receive the same till 4-7-2015. Thereafter he received intimation that the Opposite parties are prepared to pay Rs. 525/- to him but he refused the same demanding to pay Rs. 27/- paid by him as service charges. But they did not pay. So he issued legal notice on 28-7-2015 to the Opposite parties. The postal authorities issued reply stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the delay is only due to technical reasons. Therefore, the Opposite parties are not liable to pay the amounts claimed. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties filed counter / written version admitting that the Complainant booked electronic money order on 30-4-2015 for Rs. 525/- with service charges of Rs. 27/- to M/s Deepthi Publication, Tenali and receiving complaint by O.P.1 on 8-6-2015 that E.M.O was not received by the addressee, but denied other allegations. It is further contended that due to technical problem the above said electronic money order was not transmitted. In turn the O.P.1 requested the Complainant to submit willingness of him whether duplicate money order has issued in respect of remitter of the payee. The Complainant replied O.P.1 on 24-6-2015 he accepted the proposal for clearing the E.M.O amount to the remitter i.e. Complainant. Accordingly, O.P.1 issued duplicate money order sanction order to the Complainant on 26-6-2015 but the Complainant refused to take the E.M.O amount on the reasons that the service charges of electronic money order of Rs. 27/- along with the amount of E.M.O to be repaid to him. But, this was against to the provision of section 48 (c) of Indian Post offices Act 1898. O.P.1 replied for legal notice issued by Complainant stating that due to technical problem only the electronic money order was not transmitted. So the arrangement was made for refund of E.M.O amount but the remitter refused to take refund amount. The Complainant agreed for non refund of service charges and approached the Hon’ble forum after 20 months and other allegations are denied. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, as there is no intentional fault on the part of the department and no deficiency of service.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties as pleaded by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties but on behalf of Complainant Exs. A1 to A7 are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Ex. B1 document is marked. Complainant filed written arguments.
6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the pleadings, documents and written arguments filed.
7. Point Nos. I & II Though, before filing of the complaint the Complainant refused to receive the E.M.O amount of Rs. 525/- from Opposite parties for refund of the same to him, but during pendency of the complaint before arguments the Complainant received E.M.O amount of Rs. 525/- from Opposite parties by way of cheque and he relished the same. The said fact of receiving E.M.O. amount of Rs. 525/- was also mentioned by the Complainant in his written arguments in page -4, para – 2. So there is no dispute between the parties regarding refund of Rs. 525/- E.M.O amount remitted by the Complainant now.
8. Now the only grievance of the Complainant is that he had paid Rs. 27/- as service charges to the Opposite parties for sending E.M.O amount and he is entitled for that amount apart from damages for deficiency in service and compensation for mental agony caused to him.
9. The learned counsel for Complainant contended that there was lot of delay in refunding the amount. Therefore, he is entitled for the claims made against the Opposite parties.
10. Per contra learned counsel for Opposite parties contended that there is no willful default or negligence and deficiency in service on their part and it was due to technical problem only the E.M.O. was not transmitted and there was some procedural delay in refunding the amount which is not at all deficiency in service and however, they refunded the E.M.O amount of Rs. 525/- and accepted by the Complainant and Rs. 27/- as service charges are non-refundable. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service, no mental agony and no damage caused to the Complainant and Complainant is not entitled for the claims and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. As already noted E.M.O. of Rs. 525/- sent by Complainant was not remitted due to technical problem and the same was refunded to Complainant and Complainant received the same by way of cheque during pendency of the complaint.
12. With regard to service charges of Rs. 27/- said to have been incurred by the Complainant for remitting E.M.O. of Rs. 525/- as per P & T volume - VI, part – II, rule 63 (3) the commission in no case is refunded for E.M.O. further as per section 48 (c) of Indian Post Offices Act 1898 no suit or other legal proceeding 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 an 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 willful act or default of such officer.
13. In this case there is no willful act or deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties for not remitting the E.M.O of Complainant. It is only due to technical problem the electronic money order was not transmitted. The same has also been intimated to the Complainant and also stated in reply notice given to him. Therefore, deficiency in service willful negligence cannot be attributed in this case to the Opposite parties for not remitting the E.M.O of Complainant. The Complainant has accepted refund of Rs. 525/- from Opposite parties by way of cheque and he relised the amount so the claims of Rs. 50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony from the Opposite parties cannot be ordered and the Complainant is not at all entitled for the above huge claims. Since, the Complainant has already received the E.M.O amount from the Opposite parties and there is no willful default or negligence on the side of the Opposite parties and as per postal act the commission is not refundable for E.M.O’s. the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points I & II are answered against the complainant.
14. Point No. III. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th day of July 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 Original receipts of EMO Rs.552/- dated 30-04-2015 issued by
the respondents.
Ex.A2 P/c letter addressed to opposite party No.2 from complainant dated
03-06-2015.
Ex.A3 P/c letter addressed to opposite party No.1 from complainant dated
04-06-2015 along with postal receipt.
Ex.A4 P/c letter addressed to complainant from opposite party-1 dated
17-06-2015.
Ex.A5 P/c letter addressed to complainant from opposite party-1 dated
26-06-2015.
Ex.A6 Legal notice to opposite parties 1,2 dated 28-07-2015 and postal receipt.
Ex.A7 Replay letter from opposite party -1 dated 13-08-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties: -
Ex.B1 P/c of Extract of para 48 (c) of the Indian post Office Act,1898 duly signed by Superintendent of Post Office, Kadapa Division.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri B. Madhusudhana, Head Master, Gowtham E.M. School,
Madanapalli Road, Rayachoty Town and Mandal, Kadapa Dist. A.P
2) Sri G.Gurrappa, Govt. Pleader for opposite parties.
B.V.P
