KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.678/2004
JUDGMENT DATED.12.06.08
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1.The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thalassery – 670 102.
2.The Superintendent of R.L.O, : APPELLANTS
Trivandrum
(By Adv.M.P.Sasidharan Nair)
Vs
Dr.N.Usman,
Oriental Medical Hall, : RESPONDENT
Main Road, Thalassery.
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The opposite parties in OP.199/01 in the file of CDRF, Kannur are the appellants herein who are under orders to pay Rs.1,440/- towards the value of the demand drafts, compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant as per order dated.8.6.04.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had sent a letter with two demand drafts for Rs.1440/- (600+840) by registered post with acknowledgement due to one Mrs.C.M.Nafeesumma on 11.2.99 through the 1st opposite party. The grievance is that the said cover containing the demand drafts did not reach the addressee and instead the same was returned to him through the 2nd opposite party. Since the R.L.O Authority Thiruvananthapuram opened the envelope and impressed their seal on the demand drafts he could not encash the same from the bank and hence the notice was issued to the opposite parties on 9.11.2000 for payment of Rs.1440/- being the value of the demand drafts with 18% interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation to be paid to him by the opposite parties. In spite of the notice, the opposite parties failed to pay the amount and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay the value of the demand drafts and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and other expenses met by him along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing their version and contended that the complaint lacked bonafides and hence the same was liable to be dismissed. It was inter alia submitted that the cover containing the demand drafts could not be delivered to the addressee as the same was not claimed by the addressee. Hence the cover was sent back to the sender and the intimation was given and in spite of the intimation the sender also did not claim the cover and the same was sent to RLO (Returned Letter Office), Thiruvananthapuram. When the cover was opened it was found that the same contained only one demand draft for Rs.600/-. It was impressed with the date stamp of the Returned Letter Office as prescribed in Rule 424 of P & T Manual Volume VIII. It was further contended by the opposite parties that the complainant’s allegation that he had sent one more demand draft dated 23.7.99 for Rs.840/- could not be believed as the demand draft dt.23.7.99 could not be sent on 11.2.99. The opposite parties also contended that they are having immunity under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and in short it was submitted before the forum that there was no lapse or deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A7.
5. We heard the agent of the appellants who submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that there was no negligence or lapse on the part of the opposite parties and the forum ought not have fastened the liability on the opposite parties ignoring the principles laid down in Rule 424 of the P & T Manual Volume VIII whereby they were empowered to open the undelivered covers that were sent to the RLO and if bank drafts are found they shall be impressed with the date stamp. He has also argued before us that the complainant’s case cannot be accepted since he has not produced any evidence to show that there were two demand drafts in the cover and the same could not be encashed by the complainant. He has also advanced the contention that section 6 of the Post Office Act would give immunity. It is his further case that the complainant has approached the forum with unclean hands as it can never be believed that the demand draft dated 23.7.99 could be sent on 11.2.99 and the forum below ought to have appreciated the said contention of the opposite parties.
6. On a perusal of the documents it is observed that Ext.A7 which are the photo copies of the demand drafts for Rs.600/- and Rs.840/- are dated.5.2.99 and 23.7.99 and in such a case the case of the appellants is to be accepted that the demand draft drawn on 23.7.99 could not be sent on 11.2.99. It is also to be noted that the complaint has not adduced any evidence to show that the said demand drafts were not encashed by him. It is only the photo copies that are produced before the forum. The lower forum ought to have found that if there were two demand drafts the same could be impressed with date stamps as per Rule 424 of the P & T Manual Volume VIII and in such a circumstance the action of the opposite parties could not be found fault with and the forum ought to have dismissed the complaint.
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated.8.6.04 in OP.199/01 of CDRF, Kannur thereby the complaint is dismissed. In the nature and circumstances of the case there is no order as to cost.
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU :PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN :MEMBER
R.AV
