KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:114/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:19..03..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1.Sub Postmaster, B.P.Angadi-676102. : APPELLANTS 2.The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirur Division, Tirur-676104. (By Agent : Sri.R.P.Sandeep) Vs. Mohammed Shafi, S/o Moideenkutty, Mundekkat House, Thalakkad Amsom, B.P.Angadi Desom, : RESPONDENT P.O- B.P.Angadi-676102. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC:155/09 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost for the delayed/non delivery of the cover that contained the hall ticket to appear for written test for the post of Village Extension Officer. The cover was sent on 7/11/2008 and a test was on 23/11/2009. The cover reached the opposite party post office on 12/11/2008. It is only on 27/12/2008 the brother of the complainant approached postal authorities and obtained the cover. The post of village extension officer carried the scale of pay of Rs.Rs.5650/--Rs.8,790/-. He has sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. The version of the opposite parties contained the contention that the regular postman was on leave during the period and substitute was appointed on daily wages. No action can be taken against such persons for the deficiency committed by them. It is also contended that the address was incomplete. 3. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the complainant and 2nd opposite party and Exts.A1 to A6, B1 and B2. 4.I find that it was for the opposite parties to establish that the substitute postman made enquiries and could not locate the complainant. The cover was an unregistered one and hence could have been delivered at the house of the complainant. It is mentioned in Ext.B1(a) that one Rahul Sai was appointed as substitute on daily wages. The above person was not examined. Hence there is no evidence as such to prove that the substitute postman on daily wages had made enquiries and could not locate the house of the complainant. Considering the loss sustained by the complainant as he could not appear for the test the compensation awarded is only nominal. I find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. Hence there is no scope for admitting the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine. The office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
