POST MASTER, MELUR POST OFFICE vs P. Rajendran

-THE complainant is working as Audit Inspector in Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department. THE complainant had desired to appear for the Group I Examination for which purpose, he purchased books to improve his knowledge and performances. On 28.5.1998 the complainant through the opposite party sent a sum of Rs. 570/- as subscription for two years for the books to "Pratiyogita Darpan", Agra, but the said books were not delivered to the complainant nor he received any acknowledgement for payment. THErefore, the complainant sent a complaint to the second opposite party. He issued a reply stating that inquiry is being made. Due to the non-delivery of the Money Order, the complainant was not able to get the books thus there is deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

THE opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that a Money Order was booked on 28.5.1998. THE complainant informed on 8.8.1998 that the acknowledgement was not received. After receipt from the office of payment on 21.12.1998, sanction for issue duplicate money order to the payee was issued on 22.12.1998 and this amount was paid on 4.1.1999. As per Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Postal Department is exempted from liability. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 570/- along with a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 250/-. Hence the present appeal.

That a Money Order for a sum of Rs. 570/- was sent by the complainant on 28.5.1998 to the Booksellers at Agra and that the payment on the said money order was not made to the consignee namely the Booksellers till 4.1.1999 is the admitted case of the both parties. After a complaint by the complainant, the opposite parties made inquiries and came to know that the amount was not actually delivered to the Booksellers namely the payee and thereafter they sent a duplicate money order to the payee on 4.1.1999. Merely sending of a duplicate money order and after nearly a lapse of 7 months will not absolve the department from liability. For the purpose for which the money order sent has been lost since the money did not reach the intended party in time. No doubt the payee has received the payment of the amount subsequently on 4.1.1999. But apparently the payee has not chosen to send any books to the complainant because he was not perhaps aware as to why the amount was being sent to him, by whom and for what purpose. For transmission of money by money order to any given place within the Union Territory, the Department charges commission. When they charge commission and send the money order form duly filled up by a person for transmission of that amount, then it follows that there is duty caused upon them to deliver the same to the addressee or payee as the case may be. Having received the amount by way of commission which in other words mean ''charges for transmission'', they have offered to render service to the complainant and have charged fees by way of commission for the said service and, therefore, they are duty bound to deliver it to the payee in accordance with the instructions on the money order form. There is admitted failure here and consequently it gives room to spell out a case of deficiency in service. The learned Counsel for the appellants only contended that Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act would exempt the Post Office from any liability. We are unable to accept this contention because a reading of the same provision would only show that the exemption from liability would arise only if any wrong or excess payment is made. Here is the case where no payment has been made at all. Therefore, Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act cannot come to the aid of the opposite parties. Consequently we find no merits in this appeal.

IN the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance: 2 months. Appeal dismissed with costs.