SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELE-GRAPHS, TUTICORIN vs R. JEYALAKSHMI

WE do not see any merits in this appeal. The essence of the complainant''s case is that a telegraphic money order sent to the second complainant by the first complainant was never delivered with the result that the second complainant was put to hardship and, therefore, the complaint was laid claiming a compensation against the Postal and Telegraph Department.

THE opposite parties admitted that the telegraphic money order as booked on 29.5.1998 by the first complainant to the second complainant payable at Bangalore did not reach Jeyanagar Post Office. Conveniently they would also state that at the delivery office, records are not available and the said T.M.O. is not available since the records have been destroyed. Thus this is a case where we find that it is accepted that the telegraphic money order booked at the office of the first opposite party by the first complainant and intended for the second complainant did not reach him at all. In fact, there is no record to show that any transmission of the amount was made at all from the first opposite party, the sub-post office at Arumuganeri. As is to be expected, the opposite parties would hide under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act namely Section 48 and Section 6. Section 6 will not apply to the facts of this case for the simple reason that it relates to a postal article. Money orders especially telegraphic money orders cannot fall under the purview of Section 6 of the Post Office and Telegraph Act which provides exemption from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage caused to any postal article in course of transmission by post. By no stretch of imagination, a money order can be brought under Section 6 of the Act as it is not an article. Now, with regard to Section 48, it can come into play only when there is a wrong payment of the money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee or when it is on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by or on the part of an officer of the post office. Here there is no question of payment at all much less wrong payment because the money order was never delivered. It is not a question of money order having been refused or delayed on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake on the part of an officer of the post office. THErefore, Section 48 cannot at all apply to the facts of the case. It is also worthwhile in this context to note that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in 2003 3 CTC 37, has held that the Consumer Protection Act was promulgated more than century after enactment of Indian Telegraph Act and the Parliament was fully aware of availability of remedy under Indian Telegraph Act and when, in spite of it, a new legislation has been passed, it would mean that Consumer Fora have jurisdiction and the remedy under the Act is in addition to and in derogation and that the Act would operate a special law. THE observations of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court would be apt to the facts of the case. THErefore, in such circumstances, we are of the clear view that there is no merit in this appeal. THE lower Forum had granted a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and a cost of Rs. 250/-. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum awarded by the lower Forum. In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Forum, however, without costs. Appeal dismissed.