According to the complaint, filed by M Rajendran on May 27, 1996, he had sent a money order to his wife R Susee at Palappalam Post Officer in Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu. The money was required urgently by Rajendran's wife due to her pregnancy which was at an advanced stage.

However, when the money order did not reach her on time, Rajendran made inquires with the Dadar post office and was assured that the money would be dispatched soon. On June 19, 1996, after receiving another message from his wife that the money was yet to arrive, Rajendran made a written complainant to the senior postmaster at Dadar.

However, no action was taken and on August 2, 1996, Rajendran wrote to the chief postmaster general, Mumbai circle. Thereafter, Rajendran, throughconsumer activist P C Singhi, continued to correspond with the chief postmaster general. The Dadar postmaster was ordered to send a duplicate money order for Rs 1,000 which finally reached Susee on August 23, 1996.According to the complaint, Susee had to undergo mental agony and had to take a loan which entailed Rs 300 as interest for three months.

Thereafter Rajendran requested the postal authorities to reimburse the Rs 300 and pay compensation. However, he received a reply dated September 7, 1996, from the postal authorities saying there was no provision to pay compensation for the delayed payment. Rajendran then moved the Consumer Court.

The postmaster, Dadar, in his submission before the court, had stated that once the money order is dispatched from Mumbai the responsibility of disbursing the sum lies with the next post office, namely Pallan Palam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu circle. He added that if there is a delay it too should be attributed to the office of payment.

However, the two-member bench ofthe forum, comprising the President R J Purandare and member Mamata Kanade, ordered the postmaster, Dadar, to pay Rs 300 to Rajendran as compensation and Rs 250 as costs. In its order, the forum has also observed that the postmaster had not explained the delay in paying the sum for which the money order was dispatched. ``It appears that the postmaster wants to shift the responsibility on the Tamil Nadu postal authorities to whom the money order was sent,'' it reads.

The forum pointed out that by merely shifting the responsibility to the Tamil Nadu post office without producing any evidence in support of this contention, the Dadar post office cannot escape the liability to pay compensation.