MAHABALESHWARA GANAPATHI HEGDE Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is preferred by the complainant in Complaint No.59/1994, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttara Kannada, District Karwar, aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.1995, whereby the com- plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) The claim of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had sent a Money Order for Rs.50/- on 19.4.1993 from Sirsi Post Office to one Sri Puttabhatta, Archak, Manjaguni, for the purpose of Pooja on 21.4.1993. The Money Order has not been paid to the addressee and has been returned; as a result of which the Pooja has not been performed as desired by the complain- ant. The complainant and his family members were put to mental agony. The family members have severely suffered due to non-performance of the Pooja. Hence, the complaint for recovery of damages of Rs.2,000 /- and costs of the proceedings in a sum of Rs.200/.

(3.) The opponents, the Postal Authorities, i. e. the Superintendent of Post Offices Sirsi, and the Postman, Manjaguni, have filed their versions and have denied the claim of the complain- ant. They admit that the complainant had sent a Money Order from Sirsi to Manjaguni. How- ever, the M. O. was not paid to the addressee and it was returned to the remitter on the same day as there was change in the address of the addressee. Sri Puttabhatta was not the Archak of the temple and, therefore, the M. O. was not given to him. In order to safeguard the interests of the sender and the temple, the M. O. was not disbursed. The opponents have denied the claim for damages of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.200/-. They have contended that they are not liable for any damages for non-delivery of the M. O. in view of the provisions of Sec.48 of the Indian Post Office Act. In the end, they have sought for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has filed his own affidavit and on behalf of the opponents, the 1st opponent has filed his affidavit. Xerox copies of the M. O. Coupon and M. O. Receipt are produced by the complainant. Opponents have also produced xerox copies of some letters and the extract of Sec.48 of the Indian Post Office Act. On consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and the documents, the District Forum has passed the impugned order.