NATIONAL LOK ADALAT - 12.11.2022.

Advocate for complainant appeared in person & submitted that his claim has been settled between O.P. No. 3 & 4.  Heard.  As complainant is satisfied with O.P. No.3 & 4, the names of O.P. No. 3 & 4 is deleted as complainant has no objection on it.

          Call on later for hearing against O.P. No. 1 & 2.

Later/12.11.2022.

Advocate for O.P. No. 1 & 2 filed hazira.  Heard the advocate for O.P. No. 1 & 2 in presence of complainant.

Advocate for complainant submitted that he has not received the vehicular documents send to him by R.T.O., Bhadrak by Speed Post No. EO470193215IN &EO470193207IN.  The version of the complainant is that he has not received those documents till the date of filing of the complaint which amounts deficiency of service.

 As per the letter of O.P. No.2 No.754/RTA dt.18.02.2020 filed by the complainant & the written version annexed to the letter, it is evident that after registering the case tractor OD-22-M-6112 & OD-22-M-6113 it has sent all vehicular documents through Regd. Post on 31.10.2018 in the given postal address of the complainant.  So there is no deficiency of service found against O.P. No. 2.

So far as the deficiency in service of O.P. No. 1 is concerned, O.P. No. 1 stated that in its annexure-R/3 the said vehicular documents of the said tractor has been delivered to Raghunath Biswal who is the father of complainant on 03.11.2018.  Further, as per the office memorandum with regard to procedure of delivery of speed post articles filed as annexure-R/5 at its point No. 2 (A) it has been clearly stated that, speed post article is to be delivered either to the addressee or any other person who takes delivery of the article to the same address. On the other hand, the contention of the complainant is that, as per the RTI reply revelation in annexure-R/2 the said articles have never been received in Manjuri Road S.O.  Both Tesinga & Kulana Post office comes under Manjuri Road S.O.  As original written complaint 18.09.2019 marked as annexure R/1 the complainant has mentioned his post is Tesinga, the reply of Postal Department annexure R/2 is based on their enquiry made at Tesinga P.O.  Later after due enquiry at Kulana P.O. the O.P. No. 1 came to know that the article has been delivered to complainant’s address on 03.11.2018.  Though the complainant’s advocate was in receipt of copy of the written version 01.02.2021 did not challenged the annexures filed &it’s contents.  However, during the course of hearing, he challenged annexure R/3 to be a fabricated document.

 It is highly unbelievable that, in lack of vehicular paper the complainant was not able to ply his vehicle on the road till filing of this case.  As it is always open to the complainant to obtain duplicate of the vehicular documents by paying nominal fees at the concerned registering authorities office.  Further, the first time complain before O.P. No. 1 (Annexed-R/1) after inordinate delay of one year which creates doubt on the sanctity of the consumer complainant.

O.P. No. 2 has delivered the article to the father of complainant on the third day of booking of the speed post article.  So no deficiency is found against O.P. No. 1.

 Under such circumstances, the allegation against O.P. No. 1 & 2 is not sustainable.  Hence dismissed against O.P. No. 1 & 2.

   Accordingly, the complaint is dropped in view of settlement of the claim between O.P. No. 3 & 4 and dismissed against O.P. No. 1 & 2.