DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, SHIMLA & ORS Vs. NITIN PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Speed post money order in the sum of Rs. 2,250 having been sent by the respondent on 11.9.2004 on payment of Rs. 113 as commission through the appellants is not in dispute. It was further not disputed on behalf of the appellants, that instead of being immediately delivered, it was delivered to the addressee after about 11/2 months. As such the delay is not in dispute on behalf of the appellants.

(2.) NOW the dispute starts. When complaint was filed for deficiency in service, stand of the appellants was that Section 48C of the Indian Post Offices, Act, 1898 protected such delays. Only exception is, that if delay is caused due to fault or wilful act or on account of the default on the part of the Postal Authority concerned. And it was submitted by Mr. Arora, that a litigant like respondent can only make a grievance on account of delayed receipt of money sent by him through the appellants in any one of these situations being established.

(3.) IN order to appreciate this submission of Mr. Arora, this Commission cannot ignore the reason as to why money order is sent through speed post by paying extra amount. It was not disputed on behalf of the appellants that in case speed post money order, extra amount was charged than an ordinary money order. Therefore it can safely be held that the purpose of sending speed post money order is that the money was received by the addressee at the earliest. And as already noted it is admitted case of the parties, that the money order was delivered to the addressee after about 11/2 months.