Motilala Jhalani,

flat no. 302, 3^rd floor,

Badha Krishna Apartment, near Has Khali Pul,

opposite Amar Jyoti Apartment, Baultolla,

Howrah – 711109.------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

M/S. Overnite Express Ltd.,

7A, Overnite House,

Near D n Bosco School , Tiljola Road,

Govind Khatak Road,

Kolkata – 700046.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service, monetary loss and mental agony for non delivery of one letter vide no. AWB 7973492855 dated 27-04-2013 in time which was contending one dishonoured cheque. The letter was delivered to the complainant on 08-05-2013 after delay of 11 days.

2.                  The o.p., M/S. Overnite Express Ltd. in their written  version denied the

material allegations made in the complaint and  contended interalia that there was no deficiency in service and the complainant did not suffer any loss or damage as he had remedy to take recourse to Section 138 N.I. Act for the alleged dishonoured cheque.  

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Whatever be the lofty

claim of the complainant that the envelop delivered by the O.P. Courier service vide their no. AWB 7973492855 contending one dishonoured cheque, we are surprised to note that the complainant did not file any photo copy of the envelop itself nor the photo copy of the cheque as alleged. In absence of these two vital documents, we are not in a possession to ascertain if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. That apart legal course of action in accordance with Section 138 N.I. Act was not adopted by the complainant against the person responsible for issuing the cheque alleged. If the intention of the complainant as to realize compensation by picking up faults on trifle issues, we are undone. We trace no deficiency in service in this case. Therefore, it is a fit case for dismissal. We are not imposing any cost in accordance with Section 26 of the C .P. Act, 1986 for filing such frivolous complaint considering the age of the complainant. But we must send a cautionary note to the complainant to be careful in future in filing identical complaints before the Forum lacking any merit.

      Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 285  of 2013 ( HDF 285  of 2013 )  be  and the same is dismissed against the O.P. on contest but without cost in view of the circumstances as noted above.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.