This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 27-12-11 in the presence of Sri M. Kalesha Baig, advocate for the complainant and of Sri D.V. Sai Nath, advocate for opposite parties 2 and 4, opposite parties 1 and 3 are remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of nominated post; Rs.50,000/- as damages towards deficiency of service and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

             The complainant on 28-03-11 entrusted a cover to the 3^rd opposite party for delivering to Sri Sk. Mastanvali, MLA, Chairman, Committee for welfare of minorities, AP Legislative Assembly vide consignment No.VO40511.  The complainant informed the 3^rd opposite party of its very urgent nature in delivering the cover to the addressee.   The cover contained bio-data of the complainant.  To deliver fast service the complainant paid Rs.115/- to the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party about non receipt of the said cover by the addressee who in turn suggested him to approach the 4^th opposite party.   The 4^th opposite party did not give proper reply when the complainant approached.   The complainant gave notice to the opposite parties 2           and 4.  The 4^th opposite party gave an evasive reply.    On 09-06-11 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2.   The 1^st opposite party managed to return the cover by managing the postal authorities.    The 2^nd opposite party gave an evasive reply.   Till today the consignment has not reached the addressee.   The complainant lost a valuable nominated post and on account of which suffered mental agony.   The attitude of the opposite parties in not delivering the consignment to the addressee amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte.  

4.   The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the 4^th opposite party and their contention in brief is hereunder:

            The 4^th opposite party is not aware of the contents of the letter.   The 4^th opposite party on receipt of notice from the complainant forwarded the same to the 1^st opposite party to enquire and act promptly.   The complainant wanted to enrich himself at the cost of public exchequer by addressing a letter to the Chairman, Committee for Welfare of Minorities, AP Legislative Assembly. The 4^th opposite party came to know that the above would be closed when the assembly is not in session, all letters addressed to the above office would be returned to the sender when the office was closed.   Likewise the letter of the complainant was returned as the office was closed and the same was intimated to the complainant along with the returned letter.    The complainant refused to accept the same and hurled abuses on the opposite parties.   The opposite parties 2 and 4  did not act negligently or deficiently.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked on behalf of the complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

            1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

            2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

            3.  To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this case are these:

1.  The complainant entrusted a cover to the 3^rd opposite party to be            delivered to Sri Sk. Mastanvali, MLA, Chairman, Committee for        welfare            of minorities, AP Legislative Assembly (Ex.A-1).

2.    The 3^rd opposite party charged Rs.115/- for delivery of that cover                                             (Ex.A-1).

3.    The cover entrusted under Ex.A-1 was not delivered to the addressee                                      mentioned on it.

            4.   The complainant approached the opposite parties for not delivering the                                     cover under Ex.A-1 to the addressee.

5.    There was exchange of notices between the parties.

7.    POINT No.1:-      In view of the averments made by the opposite parties 2 and 4 the burden is on them to prove the circumstances under which the cover covered by Ex.A-1 was not delivered to the addressee.   The 3^rd opposite party ought to have sent the returned cover covered by Ex.A-1 to the complainant under registered post.   In the absence of any documentary evidence the contention of the opposite parties cannot be accepted.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

8.   POINT No.2:-     The complainant claimed Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of the nominated post and Rs.50,000/- as damages towards deficiency of service.   The contention of the contesting opposite parties about the complainant making efforts to secure job by using influence cannot be considered in this application. 

9.         In Smt Sujata Nath vs. Popular Nursing Home, Ashok Raj Path and another 2011 (3) CPR 282 (NC) it was held that the compensation claimed or which a Consumer Forum can grant on the defect or deficiency being established has to be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered by the complainant and cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or for a remote cause. 

10.       It is also well settled in law that compensation cannot be a mode of unjust enrichment.   In this case the complainant sought Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of nominated post.   It is not the case of the complainant that he secured the job.   There is no certainty about the complainant securing job by using the influence of the addressee.  We can therefore opine that the complainant’s contention that he lost job on account of the opposite parties not delivering the letter to the addressee cannot be accepted.    For deficiency of service certain amount can be awarded as compensation considering the facts of the case.   Directing the opposite parties to return the amount covered by Ex.A-1 and Rs.2,000/- as compensation will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.

11.   POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.115/- which was collected by them form the complainant with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till payment.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation with interest @9% p.a., from the date of complaint till payment.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.
4. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 30^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: NIL

                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT