Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Superintendent of Post Office
rep. by North Hoogly Division —Petitioner
versus
Dr. Sasadhar Panda —Respondent
Revision Petition No.264 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 19/11/2018 in Appeal No. 1325/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 8.5.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act.—Para 4
2. Order beyond the pleading is liable to be set aside.—Para 4
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) and Sections 2(1)(o) and 12—Indian Post Office, 1898 Act—Sections 6 and 48(c)—Money Order—Dispute of—Liability of Post Office for deficiency in service in question—Complainant is cardiac patient 68 years old—Default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act—Order of penalty of Rs.200/- per day was beyond the pleading, that part of order is liable to be set aside—State Commission concluded that appellant/OPs to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost aggregating of Rs.5,000/- in favour of respondent/complainant within 60 days from date, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date till its realisation- Revision against—Held that, revision petition, being patently misconceived and totally devoid of merit, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant, and, in addition, cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum. [Paras 4 and 19]
Result: Revision dismissed.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Member—The rival contentions have been succinctly articulated by the District Forum in its Order dated 15.11.2017:—
The fact of the case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1000/- through EMO to Himangshu Chakraborty, who is a very close known person to the complainant at Village & P.O. Gobindapur, Rthtala, Via Shyampur, District Howrah from Chinsurah Head Post office vide EMO no.139694140307026568 on 7.3.2014. The complainant further states that after two weeks from the date of remitting the M.O. the said money did not reach the addressee. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 28.3.2014 to the Superintendent of Posts, North Hooghly Division, regarding nonpayment of EMI, but the concerned office turned a deaf ear to the complaint of the petitioner. Lastly, the complainant came to know that the said M.O. was delivered on 5th May, 2014. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant with a prayer as laid down in the prayer portion of the complaint.
Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.2 is that one EMO for Rs.1000/- was booked at Chinsurah H.O. on 7.3.2014 vide no.139694140307026568 for payment to Himanshu Chakraborty, Gobindapur B.O. under Shyampur S.O. Howrah 711314. Dr. Panda lodged a written complaint earlie3r to the Supdt. Of Post North Hooghly Division, Chinsurah on 28.3.2014 and in this connection a web complaint had been lodged under Regd. no.712000-055559 on 20.5.2014. Immediate3ly a letter of acknowledgeme3nt with reference to complaint no.712000-05559 was issued vide SPOS North Hooghly Division letter no.712000-05559 dated 20.5.2014 that the said E MO had been paid on 5.5.2014. Immediately after receiving the information S.P. of Pos’ North Hooghly Division he furnished a settled reply on 20.5.2014 to Dr. Panda. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint as it is harassive in nature, lacks merit.
(extract from the District Forum’s Order) (emphasis supplied)
2. The case, simply put, is that a money order of Rs. 1000/- was remitted by the complainant on 07.03.2014 from Chinsurah Head Post Office, District Hooghly to Village & Post Office Gobindapur, Rathtala, via Shyampur, District Howrah. It was received on 05.05.2014, that is, after 2 months. This fact is admitted by both sides. And as observed by the District Forum “It is admitted fact as it appears from the record that complainant sent money order to one relative in view of his word given to that relative to pay some money in latter marriage ceremony.”
The short point therefore in this case is whether the Post Office is liable for deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986.
3. The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 15.11.2017, allowed the complaint:—
Decision with Reasons:
All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is admitted fact as it appears from the record that complainant sent money order to one relative in view of his word given to that relative to pay some money in latter marriage ceremony. Accordingly, complainant sent Money order of Rs.1000/- to his relative through on 7.3.2014 from Chinsurah Post office vide E.M.O. no. 139694140307026568, counter 2 (enclosure 1). Later on the complainant was addressed by Himangshu Chakraborty in the last week of April, 2014 informing the complainant not receiving the money order and the said person had written to this complainant some abusive language telling the complainant a cheater and told that complainant did not send any money. Xerox copy of that letter has been enclosed as enclosure 3 dated 15.4.2014 from Himangshu Chakraborty to this complainant. In para 8 complainant stated that he came to know that the M.O. was delivered on 5.5.2014, enclosure filed. Complainant also took information from the P
