Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act does not provide an absolute exemption from liability for the postal authorities. The postal authorities can be held liable for delay in delivery of money orders if they fail to explain the delay.

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—The respondent had submitted an application by post that he being a poor person, a daily wager, would be unable to come personally to prosecute the appeal and the same may be disposed of in his absence. We have heard Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Adv. for the appellant representing the Postal Authorities.

2. Chootoo, the complainant filed the complaint against Head Post Master General, Post Office, Phagwara and Post Master, Post Office, JCT Mills, Phagwara. He sent a money order of Rs. 600/- to his mother Dukhna Devi at Village Sukhsolia, Tola Basanpur, District Deorla (U.P.) on July 2, 1997. He was charged Rs. 30/- as commission by the Post Master, opposite party No. 2 against receipt. Since Money Order was not delivered and the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply from the opposite parties, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. He claimed Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental suffering and harassment. He, being a daily wager, was sending money to his mother who was to sow new crop in 1½ bighas of land in the village. The fields were left unsown for want of money aforesaid and the opposite party failed to perform their duties which was deficiency on their part in not making payment of the money order to Dukhna Devi at the village. In the reply filed by the opposite parties, legal objections were taken regarding maintainability of the complaint in view of Section 48 of Indian Post Office Act. On merits, the booking of the money order was admitted on charging Rs. 30/- as commission. On enquiry having been made, they came to know that the money was not disbursed and a duplicate money order was issued payable to Dukhna Devi and the said money was paid to Dukhna Devi on October 28, 1997. They denied negligence on their part in the matter. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The District Forum on April 23, 1998 allowed the complaint with the direction to the Postal Authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant for mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs. 500/- cost of litigation.

3. In appeal, two questions require consideration; firstly as to whether the complaint was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act and secondly regarding the quantum of compensation. The District Form has referred to several decisions on the subject of different State Commissions holding that the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act were maintainable. We find no cogent reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the District Forum on this point. Non-delivery of the money order at the correct address per se amounts to deficiency in rendering service and delay in delivery of the money order also amounts to deficiency in rendering service. If the original money order was lost by the employees of the Postal Authorities, this would also amount to negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation for the loss, if any, suffered in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under :

“48. Exemption from liability in respect of money order—No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against (Government) or any office 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, commission or mistake, by, or, on the party of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act of defa