CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL vs Tej Narain Mishra

A money order for Rs.3200/ - was sent by the complainant to one Mr. Nageshwar Prasad at Hanuman Nagar, Patna on 09.4.2003 for which a sum of Rs.160/ - was charged as commission from him by the Post Office at Nawabganj, Unnao. The amount of the said money order however, was ot paid to Shri Nageshwar Prasad. The complainant took up the matter with the Post Master General, Patna but despite that payment was not made to the said Shri Nageshwar Prasad. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum, seeking payment of Rs.3360/ -, along with interest and compensation. He impleaded Post Master General, Lucknow Circle, Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Unnao and Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur as opposite parties in the complaint. The complaint was resisted on the ground that on receipt of the complaint, duplicate copies of the money order were issued for payment but neither the payee nor the remitter accepted the aforesaid amount.

VIDE order dated 15.11.2007, the District Forum directed the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 i.e. Post Master General, Lucknow Circle and Post Master General, Bihar Circle to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ -as compensation to the complainant, along with a sum of Rs.2,000/ - towards the cost of litigation. The aforesaid amount was to carry interest @ 12% per annum, if not paid within two months. The complaint against the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Unnao and Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanpur was dismissed.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.12.2008, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Being still dissatisfied, they are before this Commission by way of this revision petition. It is an admitted position that money order of Rs.3200/ - was sent by the complainant to Shri Nageshwar Prasad at Hanuman Nagar, Patna on 09.4.2003. It is also not in dispute that the amount of the aforesaid money order was not paid to Shri Nageshwar Prasad and a complaint was thereupon lodged by the complainant with the Postal Authorities, including Post Master, Patna, Post Master General, Patna and Chief Post Master General, Patna. It is also not in dispute that the matter was also taken up with the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow through Up -Dakpal, Soharamau. Though, the Post Office did issue a duplicate money order in the name of the complainant that happened only on 31.08.2005 i.e. more than two years after the money order was sent, the money order ought to have been delivered to the payee within a few days of the date it was booked. Therefore, this was a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of the Post Authorities in rendering the services to the complainant, who had paid a sum of Rs.160/ - to them as commission for delivering the money order to the payee.

THE case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the complaint on account of non -payment of the money order is not maintainable. The aforesaid Section reads as under: "48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of Anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter; or The wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or 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, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer; or Any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year form the date of the issue of the order; or Any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of (India) by an officer of any post office, not being one established by the Central Government.".

THIS is not a case of wrong payment of a money order or wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of Indian. This is a case where the money order was not at all delivered to the payee at any point of time before the complaint came to be filed. Even if it is a case of delay in payment of money order, the exemption from filing of a suit or other legal proceedings is not available in a case where the delay is on account of (a) fraud or (b) wilful act or default of an officer of the Post Office.

IN the case before us, the money order in question was sent to the payee Shri Nageshwar Prasad on 09.04.2003. The complaint came to filed more than two years later in July 2005. Though, it is alleged in the reply filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Unnao that a duplicate money order was sent at Patna Post Office on 09.11.2003, this is not the case of the opposite parties that any duplicate money order was tendered to the payee on or around 09.11.2003. If the said duplicate money order alleged to have been sent by Unnao Post Office to Patna Post Office was kept by Patna Post Office but not delivered or even tendered to the payee, the opposite parties / petitioners have only themselves to blame for the said inaction on the part of one of their Offices. Had duplicate money order been tendered to the payee on or around 09.11.2003, it could possibly have been contended by the petitioners that the case is covered under Clause (c) of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. According to the petitioners, a duplicate money order was sent to the payee on 19.10.2005. If correct, that happened after filing of the complaint and more than 2 1/2 years after the money order was booked by the complainant. As on the date of filing of the complaint, no duplicate money order was paid or even tendered either to the payee or to the complainant.

A perusal of the order passed by the State Commission would show that the following complaints were made by the complainant to the petitioners before filing the complaint: - "1. Complaint letter dated 14.7.2003 addressed to the P.M.G., Patna, through Soharamau; 2. Complaint letter dated 14.8.2003 through the Dakpal, Soharamau, with reference to which letter dated 05.12.2003 was received from the Additional Director (Public Complaints) addressed to the Senior Postal Superintendent, Patna, with copy to the complainant; 3. Complaint letter dated 20.1.2004 to the Up -Dakpal, Soharamau; 4. Letter dated 23.2.2004; 5. Letter dated 27.4.2004".

Despite five repeated complaints, one after the other, the Postal Department did not wake up from its slumber and did not bother to pay the duplicate money order either to the payee or to the complainant.

THE expression "wilful" has been defined in Webster''s Dictionary mean deliberate, voluntary, intentional, unreasonable or stubborn, volitional, intransigent. If someone, despite five repeated complaints one after the other, separate over a period of one year does not bother to take a remedial action, such an act would atleast by an unreasonable or stubborn act on his part.

CONSEQUENTLY , such a case will not be saved under Clause (c) of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act.

IN Post Master Ranipet HO and Anr. Vs. Shri N.B. Janakiraman, 2001 3 CPR 189 , which is a decision rendered by a Five -Members Bench of this Commission; a money order sent by the complainant was delivered to the payee after two months. In a complaint filed by him, the Postal Department took the plea that the complaint was barred under Section 48 (c) of the Indian Post Office Act. The State Commission however, rejected the contention and directed payment of compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved, Post Departmental approached this Commission by way of an appeal. Rejecting the appeal, the Five -Members Bench of this Commission inter -alia held as under: "A bare perusal of Section 48 (c) would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants. If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the Post Officer, appellants will certainly be liable. It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default. But when the default is so extensive like in the present case no proof or evidence on the part of complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of these terms or to any judgment for the purpose. We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As a matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act. No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same, respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment".

THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Post Master, Sub Post Office and Ors. Vs. Ajay Goyal, 2013 4 CPJ 565 , Union of India and Ors. Vs. M.L. Bora, 2011 (2) CPC, Speed Post through Manager Speed Post Office Vs. Laxman Singh,2010 NCJ 309 , The Post Master, Imphal and Ors. Vs. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, 2000 1 CPR 34 , Union of India and Ors. Vs. Achintam Kilikdar, 2009 3 CPC, Ranjit Singh Vs. Secretary, Department of Posts, Government of India New Delhi and Ors., 2009 1 CPC, Union of India and Ors. Vs. R. C. Puri, 2005 2 CPJ 49 . However, in none of the aforesaid cases, the Commission was concerned with a case of wilful default involving non -payment of the money order for more than two years despite repeated complaints in writing from the person who sent the money order. Therefore, none of these judgments is of any help to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/ - to be deposited with the Consumer -Legal -Aid -Account of this Commission.