GANAPATHI CHIDAMBAR GUDIHAL vs POST MASTER, DHARWARD DISTRICT

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22.2.1991 passed by the District Forum, Dharwar in Complaint No. 94/1990 on its file.

IT arises in this way : - One Sri S .L. Kulkarni tendered Rs. 50/- in the Post Office at Kalyan on 15.11.1989 for sending it by T.M.O. to Appellant No. 1. The said amount was sent to him towards expenses of Karthik Pooja in Srinivasa Temple at Mishrikoti. On 17.11.1989, only a telegram was received by the Appellant No. I to that effect. But he did not receive the amount of Rs. 50/-. As he did not receive the amount, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, for recovery of the said amount with interest, costs and damges towards mental agony. The respondents resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that complainants 1 & 2 have no locus-standi to file the complaint as they are not consumers; that only telegram was delivered, to appellant No. 1; that as the Appellant No. 1 refused to return the telegram, and received the amount. The amount could not be paid to him and that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.

Pws 1 and 2 are examined on behalf of the complainants and exhibits P1 to P7 produced. DWs 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits D1 to D5 were produced on behalf of the respondents. On the said evidence, the District Forum held that the complainants are not consumers and that the complaint is nto maintainable and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal by the complainants.

THE appellants were absent when the appeal was called out for hearing today. We heard the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the records. The District Forum has erred in holding that the complainant is not maintainable as the complainants have hired the services of the Postal Department. It is not disputed that one Sri S.L. Kulkarni had sent Rs. 50/- by T.M.O. to Complainant No. 1 on 15.11.1989 through the Post Office at Kalyan and he had paid the T.M.O. charges. Hence, it is clear that the services of the Postal Department were hired by Mr. S.L. Kulkarni. The Complainant No. 1 to whom the said T.M.O. has been sent is certainly a beneficiary of the services of the Postal Department which had been hired by Mr. S.L. Kulkarni. According to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the beneficiary of such services will''also be a consumer. Hence, Complainant No. 1 was a consumer. Complainant No. 2 being the General Secretary of the Citizens'' Forum, Hubli, which is also a registered consumer Organisation can also file a complaint. Hence, the view taken by the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable cannot be sustained.

ACCORDING to Complainant No. 1 (CW1) till 7.3.1990 the amount was not tendered to him by the Postal Department and he only received the telegram on 17.11.1989. That evidence of CW 1 finds support from the contents of exhibit D1. Hence, we hold that there was delay and negligence on the part of the Postal Department in not delivering the TMO intime to CW1. But it cannot be said that the complainant has suffered any mental agony on account of that negligence, especially as the amount was meant for meeting the expenses of the Pooja of God Srinivasa. Under the circumstances, we think it proper to award a nominal compensation of Rs. 25/- to the complainants. They are entitled to costs throughout, which we quantify at Rs. 200/- in all. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the amount of Rs. 50/- is lying with the Post Master, Kalyan as both the remitter and the payee refused to receive the same. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 275/- to Appellant No. 1 within one month from today. Appeal allowed.