IMPORTANT POINT
Deficiency in service is not a matter of presumption.

Smarita Mohanty, Member—The present appeal is filed by the Post Master Bolangir assailing the judgment and order dated 28.7.2005 in CD Case No. 36 of 2003 passed by District Forum, Bolangir

2. The complainant/respondent’s case before the Forum is that he had sent a sum of Rs.1,300 by T.M.O. to his daughter at Bhanjanagar on 10.2.2003 to recoup a conditional mortgage by 18.2.2003. But the same did not reach in time for which he was put to a loss of Rs.3,000 and harassment.

3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim contending that O.P. had sent T.M.O. to Bhanjanagar. When it was not received within seven days ‘ERUPTA’ was issued on 17.2.2003 by the O.P. On 21.2.2003 a notice was issued to Bhanjanagar Post Master. On 26.2.2003 duplicate T.M.O. was sent to Bhanjanagar H.O. and the same was paid to the payee on 22.2.2003. Delay might have occurred due to unavoidable technical problem. O.P. further states that the Department of Posts, Govt. of India is exempted from liability in respect of money orders as per Section 48(c) of Indian Post Office Act.

4. Forum below after going through the papers and bearing, the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 along with a cost of Rs. 300 to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order Post Master, Bolangir came in appeal.

6. Notice was issued to the respondent. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellant None appeared for the respondent when the matter was called for hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the confirmation of payment of the said T.M.O. was not received within seven days, as per the departmental procedure TRPTF was issued on 17.2.2003 by the O.P. In the mean time complaint dated 17.2.2003 of the complainant was received at O/o the Supdt. of Post Office, Bolangir Division, Bolangir on 21.2.2003 and CPT-21 notice (vide No. 21/24.2.2003) was issued to the Post Master, Bhanjanagar HO on 24.2.2003 in order to ascertain the disposal of the said T.M.O. Again duplicate T.M.O. advice i.e., Postal Confirmation was sent to the Post Master, Bhanjanagar HO vide Bolangir HORL No. 4897 dated 26.2.2003 after receipt of the reply from Bhanjanagar HO about non-receipt of the said T.M.O. at his end. Moreover the said T.M.O. has been paid to the payee on 22.2.2003, which is reported by the A.P.M. Bhanjanagar HO vide his letter dated 24.3.2003. A disposal particulars of the said T.M.O. has been intimated to the complainant vide letter No.CR/7-12/02 dated 26/27.3.2003 of Supdt. of Post offices, Bolangir. Thus, according to learned counsel the Forum without going through the rules and Act, i.e. Indian Post Office Act, Sections 6 and 48 and also Chapter III (Telegraph Money Orders) in Postal Manual Volume-VI, Part-II-para 115 i.e., issue of duplicate telegraphic advice at that time of passing order which is liable to be set aside.

7. On perusal of papers it reveals from Annexures A1 to A6 (submitted on behalf of the OP in the Forum below) that OP has taken all possible steps to make payment of the said T.M.O. to the payee. Hence, OP appellant is no way deficient in rendering service to the complainant/respondent and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum appealed against set aside.

Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.

Appeal allowed.

*******