PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE 

1)       The Complainant by this complaint has prayed that the Opposite Parties jointly and severally be directed to pay Rs.96,147/- being the value of the goods contained in the consignment. 

2)         

3)           addressedto the manager of Syndicate Bank and the second receipt dtd.05/05/08 with forwarding letter addressed to the above manager dtd.28/04/08.are marked at Exh.‘A’ & ‘A-1.                 It is alleged that the Complainant by letter dtd.28/06/08 addressed to the Opposite Party No.3’s Madhubani Office informed not to deliver the goods to anybody even if original MTRS would be presented and also intimated that the Mumbai office of the Opposite Party No.3 have also been intimated not to give delivery.         

4)            The address given on the said articles of sender was “Pramod Trading Co., C22/39, Bhuleshwar Market, Mumbai – 400 008” and the said letters were again returned at the office of Opposite Party No.2 as the address of the sender was “Not known” It is contended that as the Complainant was at the same time making complaint regarding non delivery of the same letters but the address of the Complainant was Pawan Traders as mentioned in the title clause of the complaint he was informed to intimate the correct address.   

5)           written argument.  

6)        

           Ltd., III (2009) CPJ 5 (SC).

           Chief Post Master, Delhi, GPO V/s. Ram Avtar Gupta, III (2006) CPJ           

7)             

     (1) The Post Master,Infal V/s. Dr.Jaminidevi Sogalband,2000(001)CPJ 0028 NCDRC

           (2) The Sr. Supt. Post Offices, Mangalore V/s. Abubakar, 2001 (002) CPR 0440 decided by State Commission, Karnataka.

8)           the registered letters were dispatched for service against Syndicate Bank by the Complainant. provided under order I Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, the said rule Complainant in this complaint in view of the allegations made in the complaint. raised preliminary objection to that effect. 

9)                   In this case the judicial note of the fact also can be taken while dispatching the registered article the Post Office does not keep any record such as sender’s name and his address, etc. In this case thus, the case made out by the Complainant that the registered envelops which are returned are not the same cannot be accepted as alleged.

10)          relied by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are perfectly applicable to this case which was decided by the Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.     

O R D E R

i.                   Complaint No.328/2009 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.                Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.