The case of the complainant, in short is that on 15.11.2013 he booked a money order amounting to Rs. 2,000/- at DNK Post Office Malkangiri in favour of Rukmini Parida At/PO. Sunderpur, Dist. Khurda on payment of commission of Rs. 100/- but the said Money order has not reached to its destination. On approaches to the OP the complainant has not satisfied with the answer of the OP.
In spite of sufficient Opportunities granted by the Ops failed to file their written version and remained absent on date fixed. Hence all the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte vide our order dated 15.04.2015 and precluded from filing written version.
Decision with reasons
Heard id. Counsel appearing for the complainant in course of hearing. Perused the pleading of the complainant and gone through the record carefully. Further, despite notices and ample opportunities granted by the forum, the Ops did not choose to file their written version in this case. Since the Opp. Parties did not file any counter to the version of the complainant, we feel that the version of the complainant cannot be disbelieved as there was no averment to the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties in rebuttal. It is implied that the claim of the claimant is admitted by the Opposite Parties. We have come across decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 (2) Civil Court Cases page-91 S.C in case titled vidya Dhar Versus Munkif Rao & Another, wherein the Hon’ble Court held, if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should be drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence. We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court Jammu & Kashmir in the matter of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillari and others reported in 2003 CTJ 953 (CP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that “ it is well settled that averments made in the complaint are un-rebutted, the presumption is that averments are true and correct”.
As per III (2003) CPJ 187 (NC) titled Tika Ram Khanal Vs. Indian Postal Deportment, Hon’ble National Commission has held that Money order delayed – Deficiency in service proved-Compensation awarded by forum-order upheld in appeal –No interference required in revision.
Keeping in view the above facts and referred case laws, which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable. We find that the Opposite Parties are deficient in service in this case for which the complainant is entitled to the relief. Hence, it is ordered that:-
ORDER
We direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs. 2,000/- the amount of Money order and Rs. 100/- as Commission forthwith. We further direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation which includes the litigation cost.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day of delay and the accumulated amount shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Odisha.
The complainant is at liberty to execute the same by invoking section 25 & 27 of C.P. Act, 1986.
Supply free copy to each party as per rules.
Delivered on this 30th April, 2015.
