1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he sent a consignment containing an application along with D.D. worth Rs.500/- for FSTO examination to the Secretary, SAA, Cuttack (OP.2) on 30.12.2015 through OP No.1 vide Consignment No.345226349 to be delivered on 31.12.2015 being the last date of receipt of said application. It is submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.20/- to OP.1 towards charges and the OP.1 agreed to deliver the consignment on 31.12.2015. As the call letter did not came to the complainant for the examination to be held on 15, 16 & 17.1.2016, the complainant could know that the application of the complainant has not reached at the office of the SAA, Cuttack. It is also submitted that the applications were receiving by the SAA till 05.01.2016 and on inquiry the OP.2 informed that the said consignment has been delivered to the consignee on 01.01.2016. Further on inquiry with SAA authorities, the complainant ascertained that nobody has received the consignment there on 01.01.2016 and the signature appeared in the delivery book of OP.2 is not the signature of anybody of their office. The complainant submitted that due to non delivery of consignment by the Ops, he lost a chance for his future. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.20/- towards charges taken by OP.1 and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and admitted that the alleged consignment was received from the complainant on 30.12.2015 to be delivered to the SAA, Cuttack and the same was delivered to the consignee on 01.01.2016 without any delay. The Ops contended that as the consignment has been delivered at the right place and time, they have committed no deficiency in service and thus prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases and the Ops filed affidavit. In absence of parties, the case was taken up for order on merit basing on the documents available on record.
4. In this case, Consignment No.345226394 addressed to the Secretary, SAA, Cuttack received by OP.1 from the complainant on 30.12.2015 is an admitted fact. The OP.1 has also received Rs.20/- towards charges for delivery of the consignment on 31.12.2015 at the address given. The case of the complainant is that he did not receive the call letter from the SAA and on inquiry he came to know that the consignment has not been delivered to the addressee by OP.2. On further inquiry the OP.1 stated that the consignment has been delivered on 01.01.2016 and they furnished copy of relevant page of delivery book for confirmation. The complainant again stated that on inquiry with Ops, they disowned the signature appeared in the delivery voucher of the Ops.
5. The Ops stated that they have delivered the consignment to SAA, Cuttack on 01.01.2016 and in support of their case they furnished copy of delivery voucher. Perused the same and found that at Sl. No.3, the SAA has received the consignment by putting signature and date. The delivery voucher filed by the Ops clearly shows that the consignment has been delivered to the addressee and we do not find any ground to disbelieve the fact. The Ops have filed affidavit in support of their contentions. On the other hand, except a bare complaint the complainant has not taken any step in order to prove his case. No affidavit has been filed by the complainant in this case. In view of supportive document and affidavit filed by the Ops, the delivery of the consignment at right place cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and as such the case of the complainant needs to be dismissed.
6. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(To dict.)
