ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. A vigilant consumer by filing the complaint before the District Forum has pointed out how unfortunate it is that the concerned officers including higher officers do not give attention to the complaints made by a man in the street and is required to run from one end to other with no result.
2. Undoubtedly, the case pertains to non delivery of a money order for a sum of Rs. 300 sent by the complainant, to his sister at Hyderabad on the occasion of her birthday, and the return of the said amount by the Postman with remarks “not in my beat”.
3. The complainant booked a money order. on 23rd April, 2002 for a sum of Rs. 300 at Sansadiya Soudha, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi-110 001, which was payable to B.K. Shailaja, c/o Prajapita Brahmakumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, H.No. 75, Engineers Enclave, HUDA Colony, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. The same was returned to the complainant on 6.6.2002 with the remarks ‘not in my beat’. Thereafter, the complainant sent it by speed post money order to same payee on 6.6.2002.
4. For the aforesaid deficiency, the complainant wrote a letter dated 9th June, 2002 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Central Division. Again a letter was written on 21″ June, 2002 to the Senior Superintendent with a copy endorsed to the Post Master General, Delhi Region. Thereafter, on 23.7.2002, again a letter was written to the Post Master General, Delhi Region, with a copy endorsed to CPMG, Delhi Circle and D.G. Post. Finally, for redressal of his grievances he wrote a letter dated 31″ July, 2002 to the Minister of Communication and Information Technology. All these letters were not replied. No body gave attention to the grievances of the complainant.
5. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum, New Delhi, on 20th August, 2002. Despite service of notice, no body remained present on behalf of the Department of Posts, and the matter was adjourned on five occasions i.e. 4.9.2002, 8.11.2002, 14.1.2003, 20.2.2003 and 26.4.2003. Finally, after considering the documents placed on record by the complainant, the District Forum arrived at a conclusion that the address of the payee given by the complainant on the money order was proper but, it was incorrectly typed by the Post Office, which resulted in return of the money order to the complainant. The District Forum also observed that there was no response to the representations of the complainant, addressed to the officers of the Postal Department and that apparently there was negligence on the part of the opposite party in typing wrong address on the money order form by the VSAT centre of the G.P.O., New Delhi. Hence, it directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation and cost of litigation with a direction that the order shall be complied with within 45 days.
6. Despite receipt of the said order, the Postal Department failed to respond. Hence, the complainant was required to approach the District Forum for the execution of the order with a prayer for adequate compensation for the financial and mental suffering caused to him, primarily due to non-delivery of the money order, and, secondly due to unfruitful efforts which were required to make for getting justice.
7. That execution petition was filed on 21st August, 2003. That petition was also required to be adjourned because of no response by the opposite party. Hearings of the execution petition was kept on six occasions, i.e., 10.9.2003, 24.9.2003, 9.12.2003, 1.3.2004, 30.4.2004 and 8.7.2004 and opposite parties were absent on all the occasions. It appears that an amount of Rs. 500 was paid to the complainant by cheque dated 24th June, 2004.
8. Thereafter, on 5th August, 2004, the complainant approached the Slate Commission with a prayer that the amount of compensation be increased to at least Rs. 15,000 for the financial, physical and mental agony suffered by him for a period of two years and also that additional cost of litigation be awarded to him. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal No-A-542/ 2004 by its judgment and order dated 18th August, 2004. Hence, this revision petition by the complainant.
9. In our view, the observation made by the Apex Court in the Case of Lucknow Development Authority v. N.K. Gupta III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) : 1994 (1) SC 243 applies to the present case. The Court observed that Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act applies to any service made available to potential risers, and in the absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the statute are beyond purview of the Act; no distinction can be drawn in private and public transport or insurance companies; the Legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies; the test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility.
10. The Court considered the reality of our social life prevailing in the country and observed that various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot.
11. The Court further observed that the authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty; it has to act to observe general welfare in common good; in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system; where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment and that the officer can no more claim to be under any protective cover.
The Court pertinently held:
It should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
This would be in consonance with the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) and (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which are as under:
14(1)(d): to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.
[provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit].
(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.
For better administration/governance, the aforesaid law is required to be implemented so that the welfare schemes framed by the Government reach the common consumer and the objects of such schemes are not frustrated. Keeping the aforesaid position of law in mind, in our view, here is a vigilant consumer who approached the various authorities for redressal of his grievances met with no response and was required to approach the Consumer Fora. Before the Consumer Fora also the Department failed to respond and reply. The execution application was required to be adjourned for six times. This has caused lot of harassment and agony to the citizen. In this view of the matter, the complainant is entitled to have reasonable compensation to meet the expenses incurred and the suffering undergone by him. We have to appreciate the zeal shown by such a person in highlighting the inaction of the concerned officers despite repeated letters.
12. However, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the petitioner waited for the decision of the execution application, and thereafter, approached the State Commission, by filing appeal; and, therefore, there was obvious delay in filing the appeal against the first order awarding compensation of only Rs. 500. Hence, no further compensation should be awarded.
13. It is true that there was delay in filing the appeal, but the consumer is not well versed with the law who, first approached the Executing Court and thereafter, filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation for the agony suffered by him, And, therefore, this was a fit case for condoning the delay. Further, the appeal was not dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of delay.
14. We may further add that sending money order for a sum of Rs. 300 is not of much importance. However, importance is with regard to the emotion and sentiment of a brother towards his sister forcelebration of her birth day.
It is also to be mentioned that none of the officers to whom the complainant wrote letters responded or regretted for the inaction, apathy or mistake by the employees of the Postal Department. Such inaction frustrates the citizen and erodes the credibility of the system. For the aforesaid reasons and the law on the subject, this is an appropriate case for enhancement of compensation payable to the complainant who spent number of days for ventilating his grievances. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 which would include the costs of the revision application, the costs of approaching the District Forum and the State Commission. While awarding the above said compensation of Rs. 10,000 we are not exercising the power empowering the Consumer Fora to award punitive damages.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay in all Rs. 10,000 as compensation and costs. The orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are modified accordingly.