Tika Ram Khanal                                    -- Petitioner 
          Vs. 
Indian Postal Department                        -- Respondents

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Member.

JUSTICE D.P.WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT)

     It is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. He sent a communication dated 24-3-1993 that his matter may be listed sometime in August. Notice was sent to him by registered post informing him to remove the defects and of listing of the case for admission on 7.8.2003. Since no body appears for the petitioner we proceed to decide the matter.

     This petition by the complainant is for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. Complainant sent a money order of Rs. 2000/- to Nepal on 2-1-1999 and it could be delivered to the addressee only in August 2002. Complainant filed a complaint before the District forum alleging deficiency in service. District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. Both the complainant and the oppsite party i.e. the Postal Department went in appeals to the State Commission. Both the appeals were dismissed. Not satisfied, complainant has come before us.

     Section 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 falling in Chapter IX dealing with Money Orders provides for exemption from liability in respect of Money Orders in certain cases. This section we quote :-

"48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders - (a) anything done under any rules made by the Central government under this Chapter; or 

(b) the wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or

(c) the 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 whatesoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer; or

(d) any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order; or

(e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government." 

     Any suit or legal proceeding, like one before us, could be barred against the Government or any officer in respect of circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Section. Unless fraud or wilful act or default of the officer of the Post Office is alleged, no legal proceedings can be instituted. There is no doubt that the addressee has received money order after delay. But then nothing has been mentioned that this delay was on account of fraud or wilful act or default of any particular officer or the Post Office. This is Clause (c). Moreover, it has not been shown that the delay occurred in India and Clause (e) provides that any delay in the payment of money orders beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government, no legal proceedings on this ground could also be filed. It would, therefore, appear on the basis of the law on this subject the complaint itself was not maintainable yet complainant has been awarded compensation by District Forum and the appeal of the Postal Department dismissed by the State Commission. No further action was taken by the Post Office. There is no cause for us to interfere in this petition filed by the complainant. 

    The petition is dismissed.