B.N. Sinha, President:
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13th April, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Palamu at Daltanganj in Complaint Case No. 7 of 1994 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.
2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. On 20.4.93 the complainant sent by money order Rs. 275/- to Sitamarhi. The money order was posted at Babhandi Branch Post Office. But it did not reach Sitamarhi and hence the complainant on 11.9.93 made complaint with regard thereto which was received by the opposite party on 14.9.93. The opposite party found that the money order had not reached Sitamarhi. He issued duplicate money order on 20th January, 94, information regarding which was given to the complainant as well as the Post Master, Sitamarhi and the payee received the amount through that money order on 2.3.94.
3. As there was delay of about a year in the payment of the money order amount to the payee, the complainant filed case before the District Forum claiming compensation.
4. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed counter version admitting the facts mentioned above and asserting inter alia that on receipt of the complaint regarding non-receipt of the money order the opposite party asked the Postmaster, Sitamarhi Headquarter by letter dated 19th December, 93, about the said money order and that reminder was also sent to Postmaster, Sitamarhi on 23.11.93 and 27.12.93, but no intimation was received from the Sitamarhi Postmaster and hence a duplicate money order was issued on 20.1.94 which was paid to the payee on 2.3.94 and that the original money order was lost in transit. It has been further averred by the opposite party that u/ Section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act no suit or legal proceeding can be initiated against officers of the Post Office in respect of payment of any money order being delayed on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by or on the part of an officer of the post office except in the case of fraud or wilful act or default of such officer and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in respect thereof against the opposite party and the case is fit to be dismissed. The District Forum, however, has directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 200/- as compensation to the complainant within fifteen days of the order failing which he has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to undergo imprisonment for two months. Against this order this appeal has been filed.
5. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the District Forum has passed composite order which is illegal and cannot be sustained. Moreover Section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act clearly lays down that no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against the Government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of any accidental neglect, omission or mistake by, or on the part of an officer of the Post Office or for any other cause whatsoever other than fraud or wilful act or default of such officer. It may be mentioned that the complainant has not alleged that the delay in the receipt of money order was due to fraud or wilful act or default of any officer of the post office nor there is any material to indicate so. The opposite party has said in his counter version that the money order was lost in transit. There is no material on the record to disbelieve this assertion of the opposite party hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in respect thereof.
6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed.
7. There is, however, no order as to cost.
Appeal allowed.