Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Mongia, President;
Mr. C.P. Budhiraja and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Members
SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ORS.—Appellants
versus
RABBI PALAI—Respondent
First Appeal No. 795 of 2006—Decided on 21.7.2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act provides immunity to the government and postal officers from liability in case of delayed payment of money orders due to accidental neglect, omission, or mistake. The neglect must be accidental to provide immunity to the postal authorities.
Headnote:
Money Order - Postal Service - Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act - [Section 48] - The court discussed Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, which exempts the government and postal officers from liability in case of delayed payment of money orders due to accidental neglect, omission, or mistake. The court emphasized that the neglect must be accidental to provide immunity to the postal authorities. It held that the postal authorities are absolved of damages despite the delay in delivery, subject to proving that the delay was caused by accidental neglect. The court rejected the argument that a defect in the satellite constituted accidental neglect, emphasizing that the intention of the legislature was to give immunity only when the neglect was accidental.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sent money orders to his father for urgent medical treatment, but the father did not receive the money for almost a year. The postal authorities claimed that there was no deficiency in service and relied on Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act to argue that no liability could be imposed on them for delayed payment of money orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in delivering the money orders was not accidental neglect as required by Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act. It emphasized that the postal authorities are absolved of damages despite the delay in delivery, subject to proving that the delay was caused by accidental neglect.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in delivering the money orders constituted accidental neglect as per Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the postal authorities are absolved of damages despite the delay in delivery, subject to proving that the delay was caused by accidental neglect. It emphasized that the neglect must be accidental to provide immunity to the postal authorities.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the argument that the delay in delivering the money orders constituted accidental neglect as required by Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act.
Mr. Justice R.S. Mongia, President—This is an appeal by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh against the judgment/order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar by which the complaint of complainant Rabbi Palai was disposed of in the following terms :
“9. The version of the complainant that the money orders were sent by him to his father, who was in dire need of money for getting himself treated, has not been rebutted or shown to be wrong in any manner. The amount of the money orders had reached father of the complainant after about 10 months or so and it has not been shown by the O.Ps. that there was no defualt or negligence on the part of the officials of the Deparment. Deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is squarely proved in view of the discussion made in the earlier part of the order. The anguish and concern of the complainant for the non-receipt of the money remitted by him through money orders by his father can well be imagined. The amount having now been paid, the complainant is awarded compensation for harassment and inconveneince caused by him by the O.Ps. which is assessed at Rs. 1,000. Besides that the O.Ps. are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 500 as costs of this litigation. Compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.”
2. Undisputed facts are that the complainant had sent three money orders amounting to Rs. 5,000 each in favour of his father, two on 9.12.2004 and one on 10.12.2004, through the Post Master, Sub Post Office, Lodhi Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar (i.e., Opposite Party No. 3 in the complaint). It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant’s father was seriously ill and he demanded the money from the complainant for his treatment. A commission of Rs. 250 was charged by the Post Office as per the Rules for each money order. It was alleged that the addressee had not received the money for almost a year as, according to the allegations in the complaint, the money had not even been received when the complaint was filed. Number of representations made by the complainant to the Opposite Parties, it was alleged, did not elicit any satisafactory reply nor the money sent through the money orders was delivered to the father of the complainant. It was alleged that the very purpose of sending the money was frustrated, as the complainant’s father did not receive the money for his treatment in time.
3. While resisting the complaint, the Postal Authorities admitted the fact of booking of money orders from Lodhi Majra Sub-Post Office, which were sent in the name of complainant’s father in village Raipura. P O Jadupura, via Brahmagiri P O, District Puri. It was further alleged in the reply that those money orders were sent to Post Master, Ropar HO by the Sub-Post Master, Ghanauli for further transmission to their destination and the Post Master, Ropar had transmitted the first two money orders on VSAT on 13.12.2004 and the third money order on 15.12.2004 to the VSAT Centre of destination. It was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It was further alleged that the complainant had lodged complaint only on 21.9.2005 with the Branch Post Master, Lodhi Majra, whereas money orders had been sent on 9.12.2004 and 10.1.2004. It was only on receipt of the complaint that the inquiry was initiated by the postal authorities with Customer Care Centre, Ropar, the Controlling Centre for handling all public complaints of the office of destination, i.e., Brahmagiri P.O. and orders for duplicate money orders in lieu of the money orders in question were given to Sub-Post Master, Ghanauli Post Office on 15.10.2005 and the duplicate money orders were sent to the destination i.e., Sub-Post Master, Brahmagiri Post Office under registered letter No. 322 dated 21.10.2005 for making the payment to the payee and the same were paid to the payee on 3.11.2005 as intimated by the Senior Superintende
