Senior Superintendent of Post Office vs A. Sankar

THE complainant intended to buy bumper lottery ticket of the value of Rs. 10/- each from K.A.S. Ramdas of Trichy and sent money order for Rs. 50/-. THE said amount of Rs. 50/- was not disbursed to K.A.S. Ramadas but only a sum of Rs. 5/- was received by him on 7.12.1998 for which he sent two tickets for Vaigai 48th draw. THE complainant had sent the amount of Rs. 50/- for purchase of Christmas Bumper Lottery ticket which had the price value of Rs. 50,00,000/-. On account of the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, the complainant had received only tickets of the value of Rs. 5/-. THErefore, the complainant went to the Head Post Office and enquired about the non-receipt. THE opposite parties did not give any suitable reply. On account of the careless and negligence of the postal department, the complainant has been put to mental hardship, sufferings and loss. THE complainant, therefore, prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

THE opposite parties filed a version pleading thus: THE allegations made in the complaint are denied. It is true that a money order for Rs. 50/- was booked at Tuticorin Head Post Office on 3.12.1998 under Receipt No. 7035. while transmitting the above mentioned money order, the money order was transmitted through V. SAT for Rs. 5/- instead of Rs. 50/- inadvertently. After coming to know of the fact, the balance of Rs. 45/- was ordered to be paid to the payee on 6.4.1999. Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, exempts the Post Office from liability in respect of money order. No suit or proceedings will lie. THE wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee the Department can''t be made liable. 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 any other cause whatsoever other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer is also covered under Section 48. Further under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, no officer of the Post Office can be held liable for loss, misdelivery or damage caused to any postal article unless such delay, damage or misdelivery was caused fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. THEre is no wilful act on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint be dismissed with cost. The District Forum by its order dated 23.9.1999 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and a cost of Rs. 250/-.

Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. It is not in controversy that the complainant booked a money order for Rs. 50/- payable to K.A.S. Ramadas of Trichy and the money order was accepted for transmission by the opposite parties who instead of making a payment of Rs. 50/- to the payee, made a payment of Rs. 5/- only. This glaring act of negligence is sought to be explained away by the opposite parties stating that it was inadvertently transmitted through V-SAT for Rs. 5/- instead of Rs. 50/-. In para 5 of the version, it is stated that the wrong payment of money order was caused by incorrect and incomplete information given by the remitter. Of course, the allegations made in para 7(b) are quite difficult to understand because there is no syntax. But, we can take it that it is meant to say that the wrong payment was caused because of incorrect and incomplete information given by the remitter. If an incomplete and incorrect information was given, why at the first instance it was accepted by the opposite parties for transmission is not explained. Further, if there was incorrect and incomplete information how it was that they could transmit Rs. 5/- to the payee out of Rs. 50/-. If it is a case of non-payment even then one can''t understand that because as against the amount of Rs. 50/- which was remitted by the complainant, a sum of Rs. 5/- was only sent to the payee and received by the payee. In fact, in para 6, it is admitted that coming to know of the mistake, they sent the balance of Rs. 45/- to the payee on 6.4.1999. The money order was booked on 3.12.1998. They realized the mistake and sent the balance of amount only on 6.4.1999. Thus, carelessness and negligence is quite obvious in this case.

AS to be expected, the opposite parties would hide under Section 6 and Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. Section 6 is to the effect that "the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default." Section 48 reads as follows: "No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of- "(a) anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter; or (b) the wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or (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 office of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer; or (d) any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order; or (e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government."

A reading of Section 48 would show that it would apply only where there is wrong payment which is caused by incorrect or incomplete information; where the money order is refused or delayed on any account of accidental omission or mistake on the part of the officer of the Post Office; where any wrong payment of money order after the expiration of money order; and any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order. The case on hand does not fall under any of the clauses because it is not a case of delay in payment or wrong payment. It is only a part payment. When a sum of Rs. 50/- has been sent by the complainant to the payee, the Department pays only Rs. 5/- to the payee instead of Rs. 50/-. Therefore, Section 48 can never come into play in this case on hand. None of the four clauses set out in Section 48 would apply to the case on hand.

NOW as regards Section 6, it refers to exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in the course of transmission by post. Here, what has been sent is money and the money was not sent in a cover or a letter or envelope or by registered packet. The message is transmitted from the office where it is booked to the office where it has to be delivered giving them instructions to make certain payment as given in the money order coupon. In fact, even according to the opposite parties, it is an inadvertent mistake committed in the course of transmission through V-SAT and that the mistake was committed by transmitting it for Rs. 5/- instead of Rs. 50/-. Therefore, Section 6 cannot apply because it is not an article that has been sent by the complainant. Therefore, the decision rendered by the National Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 986/96 may not be applicable to the facts of this case. That was a case where it was held that no relief can be granted to a complainant on the mere allegation of loss or non-delivery of a postal article and only if it was proved that the Post Office was guilty of fraud or wilful act and such act led to the loss of postal article, in such cases alone, the postal department will be liable. As we have already pointed out the facts of the case here is quite peculiar. It is not one covered by Section 6 or 48 and, therefore, in our opinion the opposite parties cannot take shelter either under Section 6 or 48. to defend themselves. This is a clear case of negligence which has led to definitely some loss to the complainant. In the circumstances, the District Forum quantified the loss at Rs. 2,000/- and ordered the opposite parties to pay the same with a cost of Rs. 250/-. We do not find any reason to take a different view from that of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal has to be dismissed with cost. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance : Two months. Appeal dismissed.