SUPDT OF POST OFFICES Vs. DHAN BAHADUR GURUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 9.8.2005 by which the complaint of Dhan Bahadur Gurung was allowed in the following terms: '7. The complaint is accordingly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 500 and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500 (Total Rs. 1,000) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. This complaint could not be decided within the framework of time because of the reason that pendency of cases in the District Forum is alarming. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charge. After compliance file be consigned.'

(2.) THERE was some delay in payment of the money order to the addressee. The learned District Forum observed as under: 'This discussion leads us to the conclusion that the default and inefficiency in service was definitely there on the part of the employees of the Postal Department, though there is no direct proof to say that this default was wilful one. But the very factum of belated delivery of the money order at its destination is an act suggesting default on the part of the employees of the Postal Department.'

(3.) ANY suit or legal proceedings, 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 of 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.' 4. According to us, the case of the appellant is fully covered by the judgment of the National Commission. In that case the Postal Authorities did not challenge the order of the District Forum in awarding the compensation, rather the complainant had gone to the National Commission for enhancing of the compensation. The compensation was upheld as the Postal Authorities had not challenged the award of compensation by the District Forum as upheld by the National Commission.