K.Sampath, President - (1.) THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of the District Forum, Villupuram are the appellants herein.
(2.) THE complainant is a widow, receiving her pension from the Government of Tamil Nadu by money order through the office of the Sub -Postmaster, Branch Post Office, Kootteripattu. She used to get her widow pension every month through money order through O.P. 3. The Special Tahsildar was maintaining a separate account number for each pensioner. Every month the revenue authorities used to issue a cheque to O.P. 2 along with money order forms with commission, so as to make payment to the pensioners. She had been getting her pension through O.P. 3. She did not get her widow pension for July and September, 2001. She preferred a complaint to the Special Tahsildar, Tindivanam on 7.11.2001. He referred the complaint to O.P. 3 on 5.12.2001 requesting O.P. 3 to investigate and take necessary steps for initiation of action against erring officials. Still the complainant did not receive her pension nor did she get any information about the follow up action taken by the opposite parties. She sent a complaint to the Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu in Chennai, who forwarded the above complaint to O.P. 1 for necessary action. This was intimated to her on 23.1.2002. Even after that the complainant did not receive the pension for July and September. She suspected that the pension amount might have been swindled by the officials of the opposite parties department. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
(3.) THE complaint was not maintainable. The money orders dated 16.8.2001 and 8.10.2001 were lost in transit due to the absence of Pin Code in the money orders in question. O.P. 2 was, therefore, directed to issue duplicate money orders under intimation to O.P. 3. Old age pension money orders were voluminous. This was coupled with insufficient, misleading, misnomer address causing multiple miscarriage, misrouting, etc. and thereby causing occasional loss of money orders, which was neither intentional nor due to any act of negligence. The loss was beyond the control of the opposite parties. No records were kept for transmission of money orders. The booking and payment were alone recorded. The money order forms in the instant case were lost. The money orders remained unpaid. It was not paid to any other person. Before any action could be completed, the complainant had chosen to move the Consumer Forum. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and by order dated 5.2.2003 directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt the order. The order has further stated that the amounts had to be paid by the opposite parties Department initially from their coffers and had to be recovered from the erring postal staff held responsible for the loss of money orders for the delayed payment of money orders after 8 months.;