SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES vs M.V.SANKARAN

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 249/1995 of the Kasargod District Forum is the appellant. Appeal is against the order dated 25.1.1996.

THE complainant''s case is that on 9.1.1995 the first complainant sent Rs. 1,000/- to the second complainant by Money Order through the Anandshramam Post Office. On 13.2.1995 the second complainant informed the first complainant that he did not receive the Money Order. THE first complainant made representations to the Postal Authorities. Getting no relief, the complainants approached District Forum. THE first complainant claimed Rs. 1.,000/-, the amount he entrusted with the Post Office and a further amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental pain and suffering. THE second complainant claimed Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) for compensation for his suffering. Thus a total of Rs. 7,000/- was claimed as compensation by the complainants. The opposite party namely the Superintendent of Post Offices entered appearance and filed version. According to him the non-payment occurred due to a mere service fault consequent on an accidental loss of the Money Order while in transit through various stations before reaching the destination at Bombay. As soon as a complaint was received from the first complainant on 10.3.1995 enquiry was initiated and a search bill for finding out the disposal of the Money Order was started. It is true that the complainant sent two reminders for which interim reply stating the position of the enquiry to the first complainant. On receiving information from the Post Master, Bombay - 99 (Office of Payment) by the appellant on 16.8.1995 a duplicate Money Order as per rules was issued and the amount of Rs. 1,000/- paid to the second complainant on 23.9.1995. As there is no wilful negligence, the department is protected under Rule 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The District Forum marked Exs. A1 to A4 for the complainant and Ex. B1 for the opposite party. The District Forum found that the immunity granted under Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act does not cover a case of this nature and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was allowed as compensation.

IT is aggrieved by the above order that the opposite party has come in appeal. We perused the papers and the decision cited before us. Admittedly there is an exorbitant delay of more than 8 months in paying the Money Order. We carefully perused Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act which grants exemption from liability to the officers of the Post Office and Government in respect of Money Orders. It was stressed before us that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of the payments of any Money Order being 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. We are afraid that this omnibus clause does not extend complete immunity to the Postal Authorities. The "any other cause" mentioned in Section 48 has to be read ejusdem generis with other circumstances stated therein. The delay would have been on account of accidental neglect, omission or mistake. The appellant has failed to prove that the non-payment was due to any of the above. The real cause of the exorbitant delay in the present case has not been identified and had convincingly brought to the notice of the complainants before the Consumer Forum. It may also be noted that any 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 is especially exempted under Section 48. Thus on an analysis of the section in relation to the facts of this case we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to immunity claimed under Section 48.

THE decision cited by the appellant namely Superintendent of Post Offices and Others v. Upavhoktha Surakshaya Parishad, III (1996) CPJ 105 (NC), and Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Indian Airlines, II (1996) CPJ 168 (NC), have no application to the facts of this case and are easily distinguishable. The District Forum has awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. We feel that an amount of Rs. 500/- will be sufficient compensation in the circumstances of the case and ordered accordingly. In the result, the order of the District Forum is modified to the above extent. Appeal is disposed of as above. No costs. Appeal disposed of.