Tribunals and Commissions

Post Master General Eastern Court New Delhi vs K Thampi

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 23 September 2005 · Citation: 2005 4 CPJ 360 : 2006 1 CPR 112

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.D.KAPOOR , RUMNITA MITTAL J.
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

5 paragraphs · 397 words
1.

ON account of delayed delivery of money order for Rs. 1,500 sent by the respondent at Alleppy, Kerala, the appellant Post Office has been vide impugned order dated 16.10.2000 directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 250 as cost of litigation.

2.

THROUGH this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 does not saddle any employee of the Post Office with any liability due to delayed delivery or non -delivery of the money order. In our view, this provision cannot come to the rescue of the appellant in so far as the interest of the consumer is concerned. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time -being in force.

3.

NORMALLY , the money order is sent by a person to his family member who is in need of money and it should be delivered in a week or so and in the instant case, the delay was long and, therefore, the appellant was guilty of deficiency in service which means: Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming 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.

4.

HOWEVER , the object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not to unjustifiably enrich the consumer on account of negligence of provider of service but to reasonably compensate for loss or injury suffered by him. In the instant case, money of Rs. 1,500 reached late whereas the respondent has been awarded with a compensation of Rs. 2,000 for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In our view, Rs. 1,000 including the cost of litigation shall meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

5.

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.