Full Judgment
Lokeshwar Prasad, President:
1. The present appeal, filed by appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act), is directed against order dated 18.2.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2165/1998 - entitled Shri H.Devraj v. Post Master General, New Delhi and Ors.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri H.Devraj had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent, who is a poor driver, working with a Private Travel Agency, had remitted a sum of Rs. 700/- by money order to his mother, living in Mavungal House, Thirupuram, P.O. Neyyattinkara, District Thiruvanathapuram (Kerala) on 26.2.1998 from Defence Colony, New Delhi Post Office. It was stated that the above amount was remitted by means of money order to his 60 years old ailing mother so as to enable her to meet her medical and other day-to-day expenses. It was stated that the abovesaid money order sent by him was not delivered to his mother and on learning the above fact, the respondent made STD calls to his native village and also made inquiries from other quarters. It was tated that the respondent also lodged a written complaint dated 1.5.1998 with Post Office, Defence Colony, New Delhi where from he had sent the money order, stating the fact about the non-receipt of the money order by his mother. It was stated that when no action was taken on his complaint dated 1.5.1998, he filed another complaint on 21.5.1998 but there was no response to his above mentioned complaints by the appellant. It was stated that thereafter he went to his native village and also lodged a written complaint with the Post Master, Head Post Office, Neyyattinkara, District Thiruvanathapuram (Kerala) about the non-receipt of the money order requesting immediate action in the matter. It was stated that thereafter the respondent received a letter dated 30.6.1998 from the Manager, Consumer Care Centre, Department of Posts, Trivendrum, (O.P. No. 5 in the complaint) stating incorrect facts. In the above said communication, it was stated that the money order was returned to the remitter from Thirupuram Post Office as unclaimed which was nothing but a false statement of fact. It was prayed in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the appellants be directed to deliver the money order amount of Rs. 700/- to the respondent together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of booking of the money order till actual payment. The respondent had also claimed a compensation/damages of Rs. 25,000/- together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. In the reply/writtten version filed on behalf of the appellant, the appellant had taken preliminary objection stating that the complaint was barred and was bad for non-joinder of necessary party (Union of India).
4. On merits while admitting the fact of booking the money order of Rs. 700/- by the respondent which was payable to Ms. J. Jaise, Mavangal House, Thirupuram, P.O. Neyyattinkara, District Thiruvanathapuram, (Kerala), it was stated that on receipt of a complaint regarding non-payment of money order from the end of the respondent on 1.5.1998, a duplicate money order was issued vide letter dated 3.6.1998 which the payee refused to accept. It was stated that the respondent was not entitled to any relief and the complaint filed by the respondent deserved to be dismissed with heavy costs.
5. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held the appellant guilty of negligence in handling the money order and on the basis of the above finding has passed the order being impugned in the present proceedings.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that respondent Shri H. Devraj had sent a money order of Rs. 700/- on 26.2.1998 from Defence Colony, New Delhi Post Office to his mother living at Mavungal House, Thirupuram, P.O. Neyyattinkara, District Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala). It is also not in dispute that the amount of money order was not paid to the payee and a complaint had to be lodged by the respondent and ultimately the amount of money order was offered back to the respondent on 6.6.1998. In the presence of the above facts, the correctness of which is not in dispute it cannot be stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the functionaries of the appellant. Decidedly, the concerned functionaries of the appellant were negligent in handling the money order in question as a result of which the same was misplaced and not paid to the ailing mother of the respondent in time as a result of which not only the respondent but his mother also had to face a lot of inconvenience. The amount of money order was refunded to him after lot of efforts and that too after a lapse of more than three months. The learned District Forum has directed the appellant to pay interest @ 10% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 700/- from 26.2.1998 (the date of money order) to 6.6.1998 (when the amount was offered back to the respondent by the appellant for the first time). The District Forum has also granted a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. In our opinion, in the given facts, the order being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.