ByG. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that she is an unemployed girl studied up to Pre-degree with Typewriting and Computer knowledge. She is also registered her name in the Employment Exchange on 26.11.1999. From that date onwards she is waiting for an employment offer. From Koyilandy Employment Exchange, she got an offer informing about the temporary employment opportunity for the post of L.D. Typist in District Child Development Project Office, Thodannur and the date of interview fixed on 20.7.2005 at 10 A.M. Unfortunately, she received the letter only on 20.7.2005 at 5.05 P.M. Hence she could not attend the interview. Complainant alleges that this is a deliberated act of the opposite parties. Even though she approached opposite party No.1 on 27.7.2005, opposite party No.1 informed about his inability in giving a further opportunity. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties are doing their official duties without any responsibility and states about deficiency of service from the opposite parties. Complainant prays for an order from this Forum directing the 2nd opposite party to give a further opportunity for employment. On the other hand she claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties appeared and filed version. Opposite party 1 and 2 denies the entire allegation against them and claims no deficiency on their part. Opposite party 3 and 4 filed detailed written version. In the written version they raised a contention of maintainability of complaint. That issue has been answered first.<br /> <br /> Issue No.1: Whether the complainant is a consumer?<br /> <br /> On perusal of the records it will be revealed that opposite parties have not received any consideration from the complainant. Apart from the above, section 6 of India Postal Act bars any claim in the matter of ordinary postal article. Hence complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complainant failed to produce the evidence regarding the willful act of default on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party 1 and 2 discharged their official duty without delay, ie.,, they posted the interview call letter on 13.7.2005. Interview was on 20.7.2005. Here, there is sufficient time to deliver the letter to the complainant. Hence complaint is not maintainable and she is not a consumer. Hence the complainant is barred from making such a claim. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly. Therefore, we dismissed the complaint without cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Court this the 12th day of June 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/by Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />