D.P Wadhwa (President):— Respondent was the complainant before the State Commission. He sent a telegraphic money order of Rs. 400/- from the Post Office Ranipet, Arakkonam to his son at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He paid Rs. 29/- as commission. Money order was not delivered to his son. The amount was required by the son to meet his expenses of boarding and lodging at Saharanpur where he was working. Complaining deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties-appellants being the Post Master, Ranipet and Head Post Master, Saharanpur, complainant-respondent filed complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.
On notice being issued petitioners did appear and admitted the receipt of Rs. 29/- as charges for transmission of the telegraphic money order. It was stated that the money order was delivered to the addressee on 23.8.94 nearly two months later. Appellants claim that the complaint was barred under Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act, which according to the appellant gave immunity to the Government and the Post Office for any default in the transmission of the telegraphic money order. It could however, be not disputed that there was in fact deficiency in service. State Commission after examining whole aspect of the matter directed payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved, opposites parties have appealed.
Telegraphic money order could have been paid immediately and not after a lapse of almost two months. Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act reads as under:
“48. Exemption from liability in respect of money orders. - No suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against [the Government] or any officer of the Post office in respect of-
(a) ……………..
(b) ………………
(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 whatsoever, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer; or
(d) …………
(e) …………”
A bare perusal of Section 48(c) would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants. If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the Post Office, appellants will certainly be liable. It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default. But when the default is so extensive like in the present case no proof or evidence on the part of complainant is required to prove the default on the part of the Post Office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of these terms or to any judgement for the purpose. We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision. As a matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act. No circumstance has been brought on record by the appellants to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers. For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same, respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment. The telegraphic money order was meant for his son who was at a far off place in Uttar Pradesh. Instead of taking action against its officers for their default and wilful act, appellants have chosen to file this appeal questioning the order of the State Commission. We find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. Since the respondent is not represented, there shall be no order as to cost.