MAHABALESHWARA GANAPATHI HEGDE vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS

THIS appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is preferred by the complainant in Complaint No. 59/1994, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttara Kannada, District Karwar, aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.1995, whereby the com- plaint has been dismissed.

THE claim of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had sent a Money Order for Rs. 50/- on 19.4.1993 from Sirsi Post Office to one Sri Puttabhatta, Archak, Manjaguni, for the purpose of Pooja on 21.4.1993. THE Money Order has not been paid to the addressee and has been returned; as a result of which the Pooja has not been performed as desired by the complain- ant. THE complainant and his family members were put to mental agony. THE family members have severely suffered due to non-performance of the Pooja. Hence, the complaint for recovery of damages of Rs. 2,000 /- and costs of the proceedings in a sum of Rs. 200/. The opponents, the Postal Authorities, i.e. the Superintendent of Post Offices Sirsi, and the Postman, Manjaguni, have filed their versions and have denied the claim of the complain- ant. They admit that the complainant had sent a Money Order from Sirsi to Manjaguni. How- ever, the M.O. was not paid to the addressee and it was returned to the remitter on the same day as there was change in the address of the addressee. Sri Puttabhatta was not the Archak of the temple and, therefore, the M.O. was not given to him. In order to safeguard the interests of the sender and the temple, the M.O. was not disbursed. The opponents have denied the claim for damages of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 200/-. They have contended that they are not liable for any damages for non-delivery of the M.O. in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. In the end, they have sought for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has filed his own affidavit and on behalf of the opponents, the 1st opponent has filed his affidavit. Xerox copies of the M.O. Coupon and M.O. Receipt are produced by the complainant. Opponents have also produced xerox copies of some letters and the extract of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. On consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and the documents, the District Forum has passed the impugned order.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has now preferred this appeal alleging that the facts and circumstances of the case have not been properly appreciated by the District Forum, and hence the impugned order is to be set aside and the complaint is to be allowed. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the both the sides and have perused the records of the District Forum. The facts of the case are not much disputed. The M.O. sent by the complainant has been returned with the endorsement as follows: ". . . . . . . ." The arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that Puttabhatta, Archak, is the person to whom he had sent the M.O. and not to the temple. His case is that Archak shown against the name of Puttabhatta was his profession and not that he was the Archak of the temple. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the Postal Authorities in which an order for payment of compensation of Rs. 1/- was passed in his favour, and therefore, the Postal Authorities have not been delivering the letters and the m.os. sent by the complainant, to the Archak at Manjaguni and that is being done intentionally. In respect of this previous litigation, the opponents have also filed copies of the correspondence wherein the department has decided not to file any appeal and the amount of Re. 1/- ordered by the District Forum in Complaint No. 69/1992 has been directed to be paid and the instructions have also been issued for delivery of the letters to the addressees. It appears that the Managing Trustees of the temple by their letter-dated 1.4.1991 had requested the post office not to pay the M.Os. etc. of the temple to any individual Archaks and, therefore, m.Os. were not disbursed to individual Archaks. In addition to this, the claim of the opponents is that Puttabhatta, Archak, has ceased to be the Archak of the temple and, there- fore, the M.O. was not delivered to him. The claim of the complainant is that he had not sent the M.O. to the temple, but only to the individual person by name, Puttabhatta, Archak. Thus, on factual grounds, there is some confusion whether the M.O. was sent to Puttabhatta in his individual capacity or in his capacity as Archak.

ON legal aspects, the opponents have claimed exemption under Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. The relevant provision applicable to this case is as follows: ". . . . 48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders-No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of (a) ". . . . (b) ". . . . (c) 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 willful act or default of such officer; . . . ." In the instant case, the complainant is making accusation against all the Postal Authorities that since he had once obtained an order from the District Forum in his previous com- plaint, his letters and m.Os. are not being delivered or disbursed. The section quoted above protects the Government or any officer of the Post Office except the officer who commits fraud or willful act or default. In the instant case, the complainant has not specified the officer, who has committed fraud or willful act, or default, so as to proceed against for redressing his grievance. The complainant has simply stated that the opponents in their official designation. He has not pointed out which of them has committed any fraud or willful act or default in refusing to disburse the M.O. sent by him. Suing the Government or its officers either before the Consumer FORA or in any suit is not a proper proceeding to redress the grievance of the complainant. Be- fore the complaint was filed, there should have been some investigation by the complainant, due to which Officer''s fraud, willful act or default, his M.O. was not disbursed, and his action should have been directed against such officer of the Post Office. Therefore, in the present form of the complaint, the grievance of the complainant cannot be redressed. The District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.