This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      31-03-11 in the presence of Sri T.Durga Prasad, Advocate for complainant and of Sri P.Sanath Kumar, Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complaint seeking direction on opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for none delivery of registered letter and award Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                    The complainant sent a registered post on 06-08-08 with acknowledgement letter from Guntur Municipal Post Office (522003) addressing the State Information Commissioner, HACA Bhavan, Hydeabad-4.  But the letter did not reach the addressee and the complainant did not receive the acknowledgement.  On the other hand, inspite of complainant meeting the Post Master, Guntur Municipal Post Office he expressed his inability.  Surprisingly after lapse of 8 months on 17-04-09, the complainant received acknowledgement from Khairatabad Post Office, Hyderabad as the letter was delivered to the addressee office on 02-04-09.  The letter sent by the complainant contained material relating to the complainant’s case No.4651/SIC-KCR/2007, which is before the Commissioner of Right to Information Act.  The complainant sustained huge monitory loss due to non-delivery of registered post, since on  27-04-09 case No.FA 1109/2006 before AP State Commission, Hyderabad is posted.  In this connection surprisingly, the opposite party addressed a letter on 18-05-09 stating that the dispute No.5418 of Municipal Post Office is settled on 18-05-09 with the following information that RL delivered to the addressee on 08-08-08, which clearly goes to show sheer callousness on the part of opposite party.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                Sri D.Koti Reddy retired RTC employee 9-6, Near Vysya Bank, Numbur PO, Guntur booked registered letter No.5418 on            06-08-08 at Municipal Office, Guntur so addressed to Sri Charan Das, Chief State Information Commissioner, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad-500004. Sri D.Koti Reddy complained that he received acknowledgement on 17-04-09 after 8 months with date of delivery as 02-04-09. On receipt of complaint from Sri D.Koti Reddy enquires made revealed that the registered letter has delivered to the addressee on 08-08-08 itself and the same was informed to complainant on 18-05-09.  Again a letter dt.22-05-09 was received from D.Koti Reddy that he received acknowledgement with date stamp of office of delivery as 02-04-09.  The post mater, Khairatabad Head Post office has sent copy of delivery slip on 29-11-09 showing that the registered letter under reference was correctly delivered to the addressee on 08-08-08 in safe and copy of delivery slip was supplied to the complainant on 30-11-09.  The original acknowledgement might have been left to the addressee office and later released somewhere after which is the practice of many government offices, which receives large number of articles.  As per the delivery slip RL No.5418            dt.06-08-08 was delivered to the addressee on 08-08-08 itself without any delay.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

4.             Both parties have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of complainant.  Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6 .     POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant’s allegation is that the registered letter bearing No.5418 posted on 06-08-08 addressed to State Information Commissioner, Hyderabad did not reach in time to the addressee. He received acknowledgment on 17-04-09 as the said letter was delivered to the addressee on 02-04-09.  Since the letter had important material he suffered huge loss.  The complainant made lot of correspondence on this issue with the opposite party and was not satisfied with their answer.

7.             The opposite party have made enquires with the addressee’s area post master i.e., Khairatabad Post Master regarding this matter.  The Khairatabad Post Master in turn made enquiries in the office of addressee i.e., the State Information Commissioner and came to know that the said letter bearing No.5418 which is posted on 06-08-08 delivered on 08-08-08 itself. The Secretary, AP Information Commission, Hyderabad addressed a letter dt.17-03-10 along with index to the Senior Post Master, Khairatabad stating that the registered letter (by name cover of CIC) sent by Sri D.Koti Reddy, H.No.9-6, Nambur, Guntur District was received in the AP Information Commission on 08-08-08 and registered vide No.6051/2008 and added to his earlier case No.4651/IC-KSR/2007. The same was sent to the Guntur Post Master herein opposite party under Ex.B1, with a covering letter (Ex.B2) which reveals

                   “This office PRI(P) has submitted that he has personally visited the addressee and the RL was correctly delivered by this office and received by the addressee on 08-08-08”

8.                The opposite party informed the same to complainant. The confirmation received from the Secretary, AP Information Commission establishes the fact that the said registered letter 5418 was delivered at the addressee’s office on 08-08-08 in time.  Thus there is no question of delay in delivery.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.    

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of April, 2011.

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                           PRESIDENT        

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For Opposite party:    

                                                                                             PRESIDENT