Sri Nemai Mondal,

son of late Gunadhar Mondal,

residing at 22,  Abhoy  Guha Road, P.S. Liluah,

District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      The Post Master,

Howrah Head Post Office,

Howrah – 711101.

2.      The Postal Authority,

Howrah Head Post Office,

owrah Howrah – 711101.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to give specific information regarding the service of notice dated 16-02-2013 sent through registered post with A/D and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.

2.               The o.p. in his written version contended interalia that the article in question was delivered to the addressee on 19-02-2013 and the same information was given to the complainant through office letter no. 71101/01845 dated 21-03-2013. 

3.        The only point requires  for determination :

i)          Whether the o.ps. committed  deficiency in service ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Admittedly one  registered letter with A/D addressed to Jagadish Chowdhury at 24,  A.G. Road, Liluah – 711204, was  booked at Howrah HPO under no. DRW 378188046 IN on 16-02-2013. On scrutiny the o.ps. reported that the same was delivered to the addressee on 19-02-2013 i.e., within three days through Liluah Post Office as per web-based report received from Liluah P.O. Accordingly the reply was given to the complainant to that effect vide office letter no. 711101 – 01845 dated 21-03-2013.

5.               In spite of such concrete response from the o.p. the complainant filed this complaint for the reason best known to him.

           We trace no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the o.p. Therefore, it is a fit case for dismissal.            

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 161  of 2013 ( HDF 161  of 2013 )  be and the same is dismissed on contest but without costs as against the o.ps.   

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.