IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the     15^th      Day of  February  2022

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.32/2020

Reghu                                                :         Complainant

Edakkattil Veedu

Pattathanam

Mukunthapuram P.O

Chavara, Kollam.

V/s

Professional Courier                          :         Opposite party

Chavara.

FINAL    ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

                This is a case based on a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          On 16.11.2012 the complainant booked 4kgs of articles worth Rs.10,000/- with the opposite party addressed to one Kalayamathi, Thrichi.  When it was reached at the courier office at Thrichi  it was found that 2kg out of the 4kg articles were removed by broke opening the packet.  Therefore the addressee has refused to take delivery of the article and returned it.  When contacted at the Head Office, of the opposite party at Karunagappally they expressed that they have no liability in the matter.  The complainant has sustained heavy loss as well as mental agony and hence the complainant prays to award compensation to the tune of  Rs.25,000/-.

            The notice issued to the opposite party returned stating unclaimed.  Hence the notice has been treated as served and the opposite party was set exparty and posted for recording exparty evidence.  Though sufficient opportunity was granted to adduce exparty evidence,  the complainant has not turned up nor adduced any exparty evidence.  Hence we are of the view that the complaint has no interest  in prosecuting the complaint.  4 documents produced along with the complaint are only unattested photocopies.  Therefore the above documents are not reliable and acceptable.  There is every chance of having the original of the first 2 documents.  But the complainant for the reasons best known to him has not produced  the same.  In the circumstances we are of the view that there is no materials to substantiate the allegations in the complaint at least prima facie.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result complaint stands dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the   15^th  day of  February  2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

           Stanly Harold:Sd/-

          Forwarded/by Order

         Senior Superintendent