Kerala

StateCommission

639/2005

Iype Scaria - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Babu.P.Pothencode

02 Jun 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 639/2005

Biju Scaria
Iype Scaria
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ramachandran
The Post Master
The Superintendent of Post Office
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Biju Scaria 2. Iype Scaria

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Ramachandran 2. The Post Master 3. The Superintendent of Post Office

For the Appellant :
2. Babu.P.Pothencode

For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
APPEAL NO.639/05
JUDGMENT DATED.02.06.08
 
PRESENT:-
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                    : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                 : MEMBER
 
1.Iype Scaria,
 Thadathil House,
   Peppara, Idukki Colony.P.O                                   : APPELLANTS
 
2. Biju Scaria, S/o.Iype Scaria,
    Thadathil House, Peppara,
    Idukki Colony.P.O
    (By Adv.Babu.P.Pothencode)
                  Vs
 
1.The Superintendent of Post Office,
   Idukki Division, Thodupuzha.
 
2.The Post Master,
   Idukki Colony.P.O., Idukki District.                      : RESPONDENTS
 
3. Ramachandran
    Postman, Idukki Colony  Post Office,
    Idukki District.
 
JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
                 The appellants are the complainants in OP.270/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. It is the case of the Complainants that the money orders for the period of March, April, May,  June, July, August and September 2003 sent by the son of the first complainant to the first complainant   were not delivered. His son is working in the army. The above money orders were  served wrongly to one  Zacharia @ Scaria Mullasseril. When enquired the complainants were told that no such money orders have  been received. After further enquiries and on complaint filed a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Post Office authorities and realizing that the money orders  were received not to the correct person the amounts were recovered and paid to the complainant . The money orders were for a sum of Rs.3500/- each. The complainants suffered a lot  on account of the non delivery of the money orders as the insurance premium and bank loan could not be remitted.     It is the contention of the complainants that the money orders for May 2003 and October 2003  were delivered to the first complainant. although despatched in the same address. The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered, Rs.526/- for loss in LIC policy and Rs.206/-  penal interest collected by the Bank. 
              2. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the address written was  not at all adequate to identify the first complainant. The address was only Sri.Scaria,  F/o Biju Scaria, LMK(OFC),   Idukki Colony. Another person with the similar name Zacharia @ Scaria Mullasseril, Idukki Colony P.O who was residing near the Post Office and employed in the Office of the KSEB had his two  son’s working in the army  and he had given  standing instruction at the Post Office. The money orders used to be sent by his sons also. Only  in the month of May 2003 and October 2003   the first complainant came to  the Post Office and collected  the amounts. The mistake  is a bona fide  one for went of proper address. The amounts were recovered and paid to the complainants.
                  3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of the PWs 1 and 2 Exts.P1 to P17;  R1 to R3.
                  4. It is admitted by the complainant that after filing  of the  complaint they received the money order amount for the month on May 2003 after  realizing from the other Zacharia.     Evidently the address in the money order was not sufficient to identify to the first complainant. His name is  Iype Scaria, Thadathil House.   It is on account of the non mentioning the  correct name of the person in the money order form  that the wrong delivery was occasioned. We find that the Forum has considered the matter in detail.   There is no patent  illegality  in the appreciation of the evidence. We find that there is no reason to  disturb the findings of the forum below. The appeal is  dismissed. 
 
 
         JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT
 
 
          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     : MEMBER
 
 
          SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER
 
 
 
 
R.AV



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA