SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.7.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rae Bareilly in Complaint Case No.30 of 1992.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is a teacher in Postgraduate' College,. Singaramau in District Jaunpur in B. Ed, classes. His daughter is a student of B. A. Illrd year in Sachinachandra Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan. His daughter was selected for Youth Festival which was to be celebrated in Nagpur. His daughter, for attending the Youth Festival, requested for a sum of Rs.500/- as expenses. On 4.11.1991 at 10.30 a. m. the complainant sent this amount from Post Office, Rae Bareilly by telegraphic money order This money order did not reach the destination within time. Km. Sanchita Chandra, the daughter of the complainant, when came to Rae Bareilly was very furious that the money was not sent to her by money order. When she came to know that the money order was sent, she became very depressed on account of her non-participation in the Youth Festivel. She had to suffer mentally as well as physically. The complainant has prayed for Rs.2,000/- as compensation on this account and Rs.500/-, the amount sent by money order and a further sum of Rs.300/- spent for correspondence. Rs.33.50 spent as commission for sending the money order was also claimed.

(3.) The opposite party in the written version had admitted that a telegraphic money order was sent on 4.11.1991 but on 5.11.1991 due to holiday of Deepawati it was not distributed. Thereafter the addressee was not available at the address. Hence the amount was sent to Rae Bareilly at the address of the complainant. The complainant was also not available at his residence. Hence it was sent to Singarmau Institution for being handed over to the complainant. It is alleged that compliance of Sec.48 of the Post Office Act has been done. No assurance was given to the complainant about the time of delivery of telegraphic money order. It is further stated that Rule 239 of Guide I of the Post Office does not provide for any liability.