Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice A. Raman,
President & Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member
POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMIL NADU
CIRCLE SOUTHERN REGION & ORS.—Appellants
versus
R. JAMEER KHAN—Respondent
A.P. No. 196 of 1999—Decided on 27.2.2004
For the Appellants : Mr. V. Thillaisamy, ACGSC.
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Srinivas and Mr. K. Vasu Venkat, Advocates.
Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 2(d) - Indian Post Office Act - Sections 6 and 48 - Money orders - Delay in payment as originals lost in transit, payment made on duplicates - Complaint - Whether barred by sections 6 and 48 of Post Office Act ? (No) - Whether there was hiring of postal service ? (Yes) (See para 5) - Case law referred.
Held: Money order is not a postal article or an article as defined under Section 6. Therefore, there is no ques-tion of exemption of liability. It is a case of non-payment of the amount payable under the money order and therefore the various clauses of Section 48 will not cover such a contingency as we are now confronted with in this case. Hence, it follows that these two objections will not hold water and consequently deserve to be overruled.(Para 8)
(ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 14(d) and 15 - Inordinate delay in payment of Money Order - D.F. awarding interest from date of issue till payment, compensation and cost - Appeal - Whether award needs modification ? (Yes) - Appeals partly allowed.
Held: The Lower Forum has granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income and further ordered payment of interest on Rs. 7,500/- @ 12% from
13-3-95 till date of payment. The amount of Rs. 7,500/-has been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant on 12-2-96. Of course it is after the date of the filing of the complaint. Whatever it be, since the amount has been paid and received, it will not be equitable to order the opposite parties to pay interest on the said amount of Rs. 7,500/- @ 12% p.a. from 13-3-95. Therefore, this part of the order of the District Forum has to be set aside. Similarly, the awarding of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards loss of income is not supported by any materials on record. Some mental agony and hardship would have been caused to the complainant. There is deficiency in service. Therefore, taking into account the circumstances and these aspects, we feel a sum of Rs. 2,500/- if awarded, would meet the ends of justice. As regards the cost awarded at Rs. 1,000/-, we do not proposed to interfere with the same.(Para 9)
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite parties namely the appellants herein are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.(Para 10)
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Cases referred:
1.1998 (3) CPR 533.(Para 7)
2.1993 (3) CPR 384.(Para 7)
3.The Post Master, Imphal & Ors. v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, R.P. No. 986/96 dt. 02-12-1999.(Para 7)
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants : V. Thillaisamy, ACGSC.
For the Respondent : M/s. P. Srinivas and K. Vasu Venkat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay in delivery of Money Order on ground of non-payment for technical defect is actionable under Consumer Protection Act irrespective of executions under Sections 6 and 48 of Indian Post Office Act.
Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The complainant has sent 5 money orders of which three were for Rs. 2,000/- each, one for Rs. 1,000/- and another for Rs. 500/-. He paid the commission therefor. But the amount due in the money order was not received by the payee. When complaints were made to the opposite parties, they did not choose to respond properly. Even after a lapse of 4 months from the date of money order, they did not care to find out the true position. Thus, there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint for directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 7,500/- along with money order commission paid by him and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
2. The opposite parties submitted that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. It is no doubt true that the money orders were booked at Kappalur Industrial Estate Post Office. There is no time limit fixed for payment of ordinary money order. Immediately on the complaint, an enquire note was issued by the 2nd opposite party. The money orders were sent to Madras V-SAT branch for onward transmission. But, due to technical fault they were lost. After confirming that the money orders were not paid to the remitter, duplicate money orders were issued on 29.11.1995 and were sent to Kappalur Industrial Estate for payment to the remitter of the money orders. The remitter received the payment under the duplicate money orders on 12.2.1996. There was no wilful or fraudulent act by any officer of the Post Office. There is no hiring of service. The complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, the opposite parties submitted that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. The District Forum passed an order accordingly on 10.9.1998 directing the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% on Rs. 7,500/- from 13.3.1995 till payment and to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite parties have now come forward with this appeal.
5. As usual and to be expected, the opposite parties would hide under the canopy of Sections 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. The Supreme Court has held that even if it is a Government Departmental machinery, if there is an element of service involved, on the discharge of their duties the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act would be attracted. Therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that the Consumer Protection Act will not apply cannot hold good. Here, they have received a sum of Rs. 7,500/- for remitting the amount to the particular payees and have charged the complainant and received the commission. Thus, on fact as well there is hiring of service.
6. Let us now refer to Section 48. Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, reads as follows:
“48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders—No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against the 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 indentifying 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 the 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 officer of any Post Office, not being one est
