Supdt Of Post Offices vs DHAN BAHADUR GURUNG

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 9.8.2005 by which the complaint of Dhan Bahadur Gurung was allowed in the following terms: ''7. The complaint is accordingly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 500 and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500 (Total Rs. 1,000) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. This complaint could not be decided within the framework of time because of the reason that pendency of cases in the District Forum is alarming. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charge. After compliance file be consigned.''

THERE was some delay in payment of the money order to the addressee. The learned District Forum observed as under: ''This discussion leads us to the conclusion that the default and inefficiency in service was definitely there on the part of the employees of the Postal Department, though there is no direct proof to say that this default was wilful one. But the very factum of belated delivery of the money order at its destination is an act suggesting default on the part of the employees of the Postal Department.'' Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the National Commission, III (2003) CPJ 187 (NC), wherein Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act was analysed. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment of the National Commission it was held as under: ''3. Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 falling in Chapter IX dealing with money orders provides for exemption from liability in respect of money orders in certain cases. This section we quote: ''48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders -No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the 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 officer 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 order of any Post Office not being one established by the Central Government.

ANY suit or legal proceedings, like one before us, could be barred against the Government or any officer in respect of circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of the section. Unless fraud or wilful act or default of the officer of the Post Office is alleged, no legal proceedings can be instituted. There is no doubt that the addressee has received money order after delay. But then nothing has been mentioned that this delay was on account of fraud or wilful act or default of any particular officer of the Post Office. This is Clause (c). Moreover, it has not been shown that the delay occurred in India and Clause (e) provides that any delay in the payment of money orders beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government, no legal proceedings on this ground could also be filed. It would, therefore, appear on the basis of the law on this subject the complaint itself was not maintainable yet complainant has been awarded compensation by District Forum and the appeal of the Postal Department dismissed by the State Commission. No further action was taken by the Post Office. There is no cause for us to interfere in this petition filed by the complainant. The petition is dismissed.'' 4. According to us, the case of the appellant is fully covered by the judgment of the National Commission. In that case the Postal Authorities did not challenge the order of the District Forum in awarding the compensation, rather the complainant had gone to the National Commission for enhancing of the compensation. The compensation was upheld as the Postal Authorities had not challenged the award of compensation by the District Forum as upheld by the National Commission.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum dated 9.8.2005. There will be no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant while filing this appeal may be refunded to it by way of crossed Bank Draft/cheque after 45 days. Appeal allowed. -