POST MASTER Vs. RAMA SHANKAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of delayed delivery of the Money Order of amount of Rs.1,000 sent by the respondent through the services of the appellant, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 7.7.2005 held guilty for deficiency in service and directed to pay Rs.1,000 as compensation and Rs.50 towards cost of litigation.

(2.) Through this appeal, impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the Sec.48 of the I. P. O. Act, 1898 provides that appellant was not liable for any delay or loss during transit and secondly that the amount of money order was remitted to the person concerned after three months because of the address being remote village and difficult to be located.

(3.) As regards the provisions of Sec.48 of the Indian Post and Telegraph Act, these are relevant for the purpose of action to be taken against the concerned employee and not qua the consumer and that is why Sec.3 of theprovides an independent and additional remedy to the consumer than any law for the time being in force. Criteria for determining deficiency in service is altogether different that the liability under Sec.48 of the I. P. O. Act. Any kind of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service amounts to deficiency in service and entitles the consumer to an amount of compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to negligence of the opposite party.