None appears for the appellant. It is a matter of 2008. After going through the record we   found no necessity to call for the DFR.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has made a cash deposit  through the post office under the control of O.P No.3. After retirement he prayed for  refund of the security amount  but OPs delayed the matter.So the complaint was filed.

4.      The O.P.nos.1 and 3 filed written version stating that the complainant  is not a consumer since the service matter  is not maintainable under consumer law. It is also stated in the written version  that it has been denied as a condition  precedent to appointment, complainant  has made the security deposits and the same has been  returned by the O.P. The complainant has retired from service in the year-2004.Even if the security amount was deposited in the year 1970-71,  the complainant has not produced any documents in support of their claim.The case of the O.P  is  that the complainant  has not paid any consideration. The question of refund of security amount does not arise. So he submitted that  the complaint is not maintainable.

5.      After hearing both parties the learned District Forum has passed the following order:-

                   Xxx                        xxx                   xxx

The O.P.no.1 to 3 are directed to trace out the papers connected with the security deposit made by the complainant with the post office duly pledged in favour of the authority and release the said deposit with upto date interest in his favour within a period of two months failing which the complainant is at liberty to take recourse u/s 25 & 27 of the C.P.Act for compliance of the order passed by this forum against the O.ps 1 to 3.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law without perusing the pleadings of the parties with proper perspectives passed the impugned order.  The relief claimed by the complainant is void in law. It is submitted to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

7.      Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant is an employee under the OPs. Since the complainant has not filed any documents  to prove that he has deposited the security amount with the O.Ps for getting service, complainant has failed to prove his plea. Learned District Forum has only taken the plea that the O.Ps challenged the deposit of security amount which is non-application of judicial mind to the pleading of parties . It is to be remembered  that the complainant has retired in 2004 and the case was filed on 2008.It is barred by limitation.

9.      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.