Tribunals and Commissions

POST MASTER vs RAMA SHANKAR GUPTA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 1 March 2006 · Citation: 2006 3 CPJ 296

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.D.Kapoor , Mahesh Chandra , Rumnita Mittal J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

ON account of delayed delivery of the Money Order of amount of Rs. 1,000 sent by the respondent through the services of the appellant, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 7.7.2005 held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 50 towards cost of litigation.

2.

THROUGH this appeal, impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the Section 48 of the I.P.O. Act, 1898 provides that appellant was not liable for any delay or loss during transit and secondly that the amount of money order was remitted to the person concerned after three months because of the address being remote village and difficult to be located. As regards the provisions of Section 48 of the Indian Post and Telegraph Act, these are relevant for the purpose of action to be taken against the concerned employee and not qua the consumer and that is why Section 3 of the provides an independent and additional remedy to the consumer than any law for the time being in force. Criteria for determining deficiency in service is altogether different that the liability under Section 48 of the I.P.O. Act. Any kind of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service amounts to deficiency in service and entitles the consumer to an amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence of the opposite party.

However, looking to the amount of money order and the delay of three months for payment thereto, we partly allow the appeal by awarding only Rs. 1,000 as compensation which shall include the cost of litigation.

3.

BANK Guarantee/FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal partly allowed.