SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES vs RABBI PALAI

THIS is an appeal by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh against the judgment/order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar by which the complaint of complainant Rabbi Palai was disposed of in the following terms : "9. The version of the complainant that the money orders were sent by him to his father, who was in dire need of money for getting himself treated, has not been rebutted or shown to be wrong in any manner. The amount of the money orders had reached father of the complainant after about 10 months or so and it has not been shown by the O.Ps. that there was no defualt or negligence on the part of the officials of the Deparment. Deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is squarely proved in view of the discussion made in the earlier part of the order. The anguish and concern of the complainant for the non-receipt of the money remitted by him through money orders by his father can well be imagined. The amount having now been paid, the complainant is awarded compensation for harassment and inconveneince caused by him by the O.Ps. which is assessed at Rs. 1,000. Besides that the O.Ps. are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 500 as costs of this litigation. Compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order."

UNDISPUTED facts are that the complainant had sent three money orders amounting to Rs. 5,000 each in favour of his father, two on 9.12.2004 and one on 10.12.2004, through the Post Master, Sub Post Office, Lodhi Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar (i.e., Opposite Party No. 3 in the complaint). It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant''s father was seriously ill and he demanded the money from the complainant for his treatment. A commission of Rs. 250 was charged by the Post Office as per the Rules for each money order. It was alleged that the addressee had not received the money for almost a year as, according to the allegations in the complaint, the money had not even been received when the complaint was filed. Number of representations made by the complainant to the Opposite Parties, it was alleged, did not elicit any satisafactory reply nor the money sent through the money orders was delivered to the father of the complainant. It was alleged that the very purpose of sending the money was frustrated, as the complainant''s father did not receive the money for his treatment in time. While resisting the complaint, the Postal Authorities admitted the fact of booking of money orders from Lodhi Majra Sub-Post Office, which were sent in the name of complainant''s father in village Raipura. P O Jadupura, via Brahmagiri P O, District Puri. It was further alleged in the reply that those money orders were sent to Post Master, Ropar HO by the Sub-Post Master, Ghanauli for further transmission to their destination and the Post Master, Ropar had transmitted the first two money orders on VSAT on 13.12.2004 and the third money order on 15.12.2004 to the VSAT Centre of destination. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It was further alleged that the complainant had lodged complaint only on 21.9.2005 with the Branch Post Master, Lodhi Majra, whereas money orders had been sent on 9.12.2004 and 10.1.2004. It was only on receipt of the complaint that the inquiry was initiated by the postal authorities with Customer Care Centre, Ropar, the Controlling Centre for handling all public complaints of the office of destination, i.e., Brahmagiri P.O. and orders for duplicate money orders in lieu of the money orders in question were given to Sub-Post Master, Ghanauli Post Office on 15.10.2005 and the duplicate money orders were sent to the destination i.e., Sub-Post Master, Brahmagiri Post Office under registered letter No. 322 dated 21.10.2005 for making the payment to the payee and the same were paid to the payee on 3.11.2005 as intimated by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division, Puri vide his letter dated 10.11.2005. In these circumstances, it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Before the District Forum Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act was sought to be brought into play by the Postal Department that no liability/compensation could be fastened on the postal authorites in view of the provisions of the said section. After considering the arguments of both sides, the District Forum allowed the complaint as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

BEFORE us, again reliance is heavily placed on Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. The same (relevant portion) reads as under: "Section 48. Exemption from liability in respect of Money Order : No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Govt. or any officer of the Post Office in respect of- (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) the payment of 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 and wilful act or default of such officer, or (d) xxx xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx xxx

Learned Counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid section, submitted that even if the payment of the money order is delayed, no suit or any other legal proceeding can be lodged for damages, etc. against the postal authorities subject to the fact that the delay had occurred because of any ''accidental neglect, omission or mistake'' on the part of an officer of the Post Office, or any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud and wilful act or default of such officer. The learned Counsel relied on a judgment of the Haryana State Commission reported as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Another v. Balbir Singh, I (1994) CPJ 81. Our analysis of Section 48 is that the postal authorities are absolved of any damages, etc. despite the delay in the delivery of the money order subject to its proving that the delay had been caused on account of ''any accidental neglect, etc.''. The sine qua non is that the neglect has to be accidental. In other words, neglect is there, but because the neglect is accidental, therefore, the section provides immunity to the Postal Authorites. First question arises is : Was the neglect in the present case accidental? It goes without saying that whenever money order is sent from one place to another by any means by the Postal Authorties, may be even by Satellite, there is a register or some record which is required to be maintained at the Post Office that a particular sum has actually been delivered to the payee. Take, for instance, when a Post Office gives money to its Postman for delivering the same to the person concerned and when the Postman comes back in the evening, record is maintained that such and such money order stands delivered to its addressee. Even if the money order is sent by Satellite, surely it would not take 10 months for the postal department to find out whether a particular money order, which was to be delivered to a particular person, had acutally been delivered or not. If this fact could be found after the complainant made a complaint in September 2005, why could not the postal authorities suo motu find out whether the money in question had been delivered to the addressee or not. What stopped them to hold such an inquiry earlier in the present case? Some times the money is sent for a very urgent and essential purpose. In this case, money was sent for the treatment of the father of the person who has sent the money order.

LEARNED Counsel then submitted that since something had gone wrong with the Satellite, therefore, it was an accidental neglect. For the sake of argument, even if we admit that something had gone wrong with the Satellite, the wrong must have been rectified when the defect was found. What action or steps were taken by the Post Office to see as to what happened to those money orders, which were sent via Satellite when the same was defective. There is no definite plea that because of some defects somewhere in the Satellite the delivery of the money orders was delayed. The fact remains the money orders had not been delivered till the complainant made the complaint and after investigation the duplicate money orders were issued. It is only suggested that there may be some defect in the Satellite which might have delayed the delivery of the money order, therefore, it should be taken that there was accidental neglect, etc. because of the non-delivery of the money order immeditely. We do not agree. There is no such plea or evidence. Learned Counsel then submitted that Section 48 also envisages "or any other cause whatsover". According to us, these words have to be read ejusdem generis with the word accidental. In other words, other causes whatosever had to be accidental. The intention of the Legislature was to give immunity to the official of the Deparment when the neglect was not culpable or intentional and was only accidental. It is for the Post Office to prove that the case comes under the exception, which it could not prove. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.