RAMARATHNAM R. vs PRESIDENCY POST MASTER

HAVING lost his case before the District Forum the complainant has preferred this appeal.

THE case of the complainant is that one E. Arumugam sent him a money order for Rs. 350/-. THE Post Man who brought the money order demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- out of the said sum of Rs. 350/- and when the complainant refused to pay the amount he went away with the money order without paying the amount. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus alleging the complaint was filed for compensation. The opposite parties contended that 2 persons'' names had been mentioned in the money order and one Chandra was present for payment, but she refused to put her initial and therefore the money order was returned. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence accepted the case of the opposite parties that there was no deficiency in service. Hence it dismissed the complaint.

NOW it is argued in the appeal that the order of the District Forum is against the facts and it is unsustainable. But we find that there is no sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum. On perusal of the money order we find that indeed 2 persons'' names have been mentioned as the payee. According to the opposite parties naming 2 persons as payee is against the Post Office Guide, and this was not disputed. It appears according to the complainant Arumugam he had given authorisation to the Postal Department to deliver the letters and to pay the money orders addressed to him to Chandra. But as rightly pointed out by the District Forum there is no evidence to show that there was any such authorisation given to the Post Office before the incident. In these circumstances, the District Forum has held that the return of the money order cannot amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. What is more the complainant is not the one who has sent the money order. He is one of the payees. From the facts it is seen that the money order amount has been returned and paid to the sender. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, only the consumer who had hired or availed of the services of the opposite party can file a complaint and not the beneficiary. This being the case, the complainant who is not at all the person who had hired or availed of the services of the opposite party cannot file a complaint.

FOR the above reasons we dismiss the appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.