ADV. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER.

            Complainant’s case is that the postal articles addressed to him has not been delivered to him by the opp.parties.  Moreover the 1^st opp.party destroyed all letters and articles addressed to him.   For getting compensation, complainant filed this complaint.

          Opp.parties filed version contending that,  letter or articles addressed to the complainant were  not destroyed.  Moreover the unregistered articles addressed to him were not kept at the post office and the complainant himself collected the articles.  In respect of registered articles, intimations were served to the complainant.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked P1 and P2

For the opp.party DW.1 was examined and marked D1 and D2

THE POINTS:

     Complainant filed this complaint with the allegation of non-delivery of postal articles received at Mayyanad Post Office in the address MS Enterprises, PB No.2 Mayyanad.P.O.  Opp.parties case is that after getting application from the complainant for a post bag for letters addressed to MS Enterprises, Mayyanad, Post Bag No.02 was allotted to him by Post Master, Mayyanad with the assurance of the complainant that the post bag with lock and duplicate key will be produced shortly.   The complainant was repeatedly requested to supply the post bag with lock and duplicate key to the post officer but the complainant had not complied the  conditions.  According to the opp.party the un registered articles bearing post bag number were kept at the post office and the complainant himself collected the articles.  Complainant’s allegation is that the postal articles addressed to him were destroyed by them.  But for that complainant did not adduce any evidence.  Hence the said allegation of the complainant cannot be taken into account.   Ext. D1 and D2 shows that only meager number of letter addressed the complainant were received to the  1^st opp.party.

     Opp.party’s contended that instance were occurred that some of the post box/post bag holders misused the facility and cheated the public.  So to avoid such instances the opp.parties issue post bag only after proper verification .  According to opp.party after receipt of the application for post bag from the complainant, the 2^nd opp.party conducted a detailed enquiry about the addressee ‘M.S. Enterprises, Mayyanad” and Sri.Sunilkumar, Alayil, Mayyanad.P.O.  Enquiry revealed   that no firm named ‘MS. Enterprises’ is functioning in the delivery area of Mayyanad.P.O. and the complainant is not residing in the address mentioned as ‘Alayil, Mayyanad.P.O., and his sister Smt. S. Sushama is residing in the said house with family.  Opp.party further directed the complainant to produce an attested copy of the registration of his firm and to fix a sign board to be exhibited in front of his office.  But the complainant did not comply the direction of the opposite parties.

     In the settlement talk before the Forum, the complainant submitted that there is a board in front of his office.  Forum directed the 1^st opp.party to visit the address mentioned in the post bag application and submit report.   As per the direction of the Forum, the 1^st opp.party visited the said address and submitted that the complainant was not found residing in that address but instead his sister Smt. S. Sushama is staying with the family and also there is no firm called ‘M.S. Enterprises’  in the delivery area of Mayyanad.P.O..  For proving  the complainant’s contentions with regard to the above said facts, the complainant has not produced any evidence.

     On considering the entire facts and evidences, we are of the view that, the complainant applied for post bag, without complying any instructions of the opp.party.  More over the complainant is not residing in the address namely S. Sunilkumar, Alayil, Maytyanad and there is no firm registered as ‘M.S. Enterprises’ in the delivery area of Mayyanad.P.O..  In the result the complaint fails and  the same is dismisse3d with compensatory cost to the 1^st opp.party for wasting the time of 1^st opp.party..   1^st opp.party is a public servant.   She appeared every posting dates before the Forum.   Such habits of complainant for    wasting others duty time unnecessarily is liable to pay compensatory cost.

     In the result, the complaint is dismissed.   The complainant is directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the 1^st opp.party as compensatory cost.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

     Dated this the     day of January, 2013.

                                                     I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sunilsumar

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Postal receipt

P2. series – News paper publication.

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Valsala

List of documents for the opp,.party

D1, - Registered list

D2. – Registered list