KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 831/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 27..12..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER

Prasad S/o Ramankutty Nair,                   : APPELLANT

Proprietor,

Fly King Courier Service,

Fathima Complex,

Opposite to KSRTC, Palakkad.

(By Adv.P.Rajmohan)

             Vs.

Ratheesh.R,                                              : RESPONDENT

S/o Rajan,

Cherode House, Ayilur.P.O.,

KArakkatuparambu,

PAlakkad – 678 510.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties Courier Service in CC.85/11 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad.  The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation with interest at 9%  from the date of the order of the Forum and cost of Rs.500/-.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for  writing examination under Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board.  The cover containing the application was entrusted with the opposite party on 10.3.2011.  It has reached the destination on 4.4.2011 and by the time the date of examination was over.  He has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

          3. It is the case of the opposite parties that the cover was addressed to Kerala State Housing Board and the same was delivered on 14.3.11.  subsequently the Kerala State Housing Board informed the opposite party that the letter was not pertaining to their office.  In order to help the complainant it was again delivered to Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board.  It is contended that the delay occurred was due to the fault on the part of the complainant in not writing the correct address of the addressee.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective parties; Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3.

          5. We find that  it is of the opposite parties to discharge the onus of proof in this regard as cover was entrusted with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence apart from the copy of the receipt and delivery note which is written by the staff of the opposite party.  They could have not examined the person who delivered the article.  The postal cover also could not be produced .  In the circumstances we find there is no  patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  Moreover the compensation ordered is only meager.  In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

            JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU               : PRESIDENT

            S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                            : MEMBER

ps