IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that non-delivery of money sent through sattelite service was due to wilful default or by act of fraud, postal authority could not be made liable.

T.M. Hassan Pillai, President — In this appeal we are called upon to decide the pivotel question as to whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal-Forum, Kannur (in OP No. 341/98 the forum below order compensation of Rs. 2000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellants herein to be paid to the complainant and also directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.

250/- as costs) is competent to grant reliefs not on the basis of the cases pleaded or proved by the complainant and opposite parties. One of the contentions urged before us chailenging the order passed by the forum below by the agent appearing for the appellants is that forum constituted under the Consumer Protec-tion Act is not competent to reconstruct a case (a case not pleaded or proved by the parties) and grant reliefs. The agent appearing for the appellant also vehe-mently contended before us that evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case demolished completely the case pleaded by him in the amended complaint that non delivery of the money orders sent by him to the payee was due to the fraud committed by the appellants and there was wilful default on their part.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that two money orders for Rs.4000/- each were sent by the complainant on 6.6.1998 from the head post office, Kannur through sattelite money order service and the money orders were not delivered to the payee till 16.6.1998. He had chosen Sattelite service for prompt and quick delivery of amount to the addressee since the matter was very urgent and serious”. Asserting the above stated facts the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party on 16.6.1998 and opposite party sent a reply to the effect that necessary steps would be taken to deliver the money orders at earliest. Despite the fact of sending reminders nothing was heard from the opposite parties. In the original complaint it is alleged that there was utter neglignece and carelessness on

the part of the opposite party and the irresponsible act of opposite party is clear deficiency in service. He also asserted in that complaint that as a result of the non delivery of the money orders to the addressee in time he has sustained immense loss had to undergo much mantal tension, hardship and agony”.

3. The case put forth in the amen-ded complaint is that the complainant has now come to know that long delay in delivering the above said money orders was due to the wilful default and fraud committed by the postal authorities at Fatehpuri on account of illwill between themselves and the addressee of money order. Thus in the amended complaint the complainant came forward with a case that fraud was committed by the postal authorities and there was wilful default on their part in delivering the money orders sent by him.

4. In the written version filed by the first appellant he denied the allega-tion regarding the negligence attributed in the complaint and contended that the enquiry made with the office of payment revealed that both money orders were not received and paid to the payee at Delhi 110006. Immediately the original money orders preserved at ESMO Station, Kannur after transmission was through VSAT were released and money orders were forwarded to Chief Postmaster, Delhi 110 006 under the Registered letter No.1096 dated 23.6.1998. It is further contended that as the opposite party did not get any information regarding pay-ment of the money orders within a reaso-nable time and the remitter desired repayment to him duplicate money order was issued in both the cases and paid to remitter on 11.9.1998.

5. Subsequently after filing of the written version by the 1st opposite party /1st appellant complainant got impleaded the other appellants/opposite parties 2 and 3 (a contention was raised by the 1st opposite party in the version filed that he being a public officer working under Union of India complaint is bad for non joinder of Union of India and Union of India is a necessary (party) and also