SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES vs Satyajeet Choubey

FOR the reasons stated in the application filed by the petitioners, delay of 42 days in filing this revision petition is condoned:

RESPONDENT Satyajeet Choubey is the original complainant in this case. He sent a money order of Rs.4,000/- on 2.7.2004 from Garhwa Post Office to Patna. However,, an amount of only Rs. 1,000/- was paid on 28.7.2004 out of the total sum of Rs.4,000/- of the money order and the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid on 28.2.2005, i.e., after the complaint was filed by the. respondent before the District Forum, Garhwa. The respondent in his complaint before the District Forum had made a claim of Rs.3,000/- on account of the balance amount under the money order alongwith a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by him. The petitioners appeared and filed their written statement and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable under the-, provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further submitted that a serious note had been taken of the grievance of the complainant and after looking into the matter, it came to notice that full payment of the amount had not been made and hence the balance amount was sanctioned by the department on 28.2.2005 but the complainant refused to take the amount. Even while pleading that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum, it was submitted by the OPs that liability of the Department had since been discharged and as such the complaint be dismissed. Vide its order dated 30.09.2005, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities and as such they were liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of remittance of the money order No.3166 on 2.7.2004.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioners challenged the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi ( "State Commission " for short) which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 25.4.2006 which is under challenge through the present revision petition.

WE have heard Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. None has appeared for the respondent. It is not in dispute that only part payment of Rs. 1,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.4,000/- of the money order was made by the Department to the payee. The balance amount of Rs.3,000/- was released after undue delay and that too after the filing of the complaint in question. Learned counsel has submitted that undoubtedly there was lapse on the part of the department but it was a mechanical mistake due to fault in the satellite transmission and the same was not deliberate, fraudulent or intentional. He also pointed out that the respondent never brought the same to the notice of the competent authority of the petitioners but as soon as the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the competent authority, an enquiry was conducted and the balance amount was released. In view of this, relying on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Post Master, Imphal and Others v. Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband, I (2000) CPJ 28 (NC)=1999 (2) CCC 157 (NS), he pleaded that the impugned order pertaining to the grant of interest @ 12% is not justified and to this extent the order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside confining the order only to the payment of Rs.3,000/- which has already, been released by the petitioners.

WE are not impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel. It is a clear mistake on the part of the petitioner-Department to have made only part payment of the money order sent by the complainant. The facts and circumstances of Dr. Jamini Devi Sagolband (supra) were different and also that case pertained to postal article as covered by section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The present case is governed by the provisions of section 48 of the said Act which is applicable to money orders and the Fora below have passed a very fair and just order keeping in view the undisputed facts and circumstances of this case. We do not see any reason whatsoever to interfere with the same. Resultantly the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.