KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.881/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 31.7.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Superintendent of Post Offices, : APPELLANT Alappuzha Division, Alappuzha. (Sri.M.P.Sasidharan Nair, Agent) Vs. Sri.V.J.Philipkutty, : RESPONDENT Pukazhusseril House, Karikkadu.P.O., Thanneermukkam 688 527. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in OP.57/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.425/- and cost of Rs.350/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 18.2.2001 he had sent by speed post the power of attorney of his son to be signed and returned, to Damam- Soudi Arabia through the 2nd opposite party post office. He was told that the article would be delivered to the addressee within 22.2.2006. Till 5.3.2006 when the complaint was filed the article was not delivered. As the power of attorney could not be signed and returned the proposed agreement for sale of his property could not be executed. He had to prepare another power of attorney and sent it through private courier. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have admitted the despatch of postal article by speed post and the same was dispatched vide Flight No.SV 0723 despatch No.052 Bag No.I through Mumbai International Mail Centre, Mumbai. The opposite parties have relied on clause 14 and 15 of the Post Office Guide part II wherein it is mentioned that the Indian Postal Administration cannot be held liable for compensation for non delivery/delay in delivery of the letter. It is also mentioned that the opposite parties have taken up the matter with the Foreign Postal Administration on receipt of notice from the Forum. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; A1 and A2. 5. The Forum relied on the evidence of the complainant that he had to resort to the private internet facility to find out that the article was not delivered. Although he used to enquire about the delivery every day at the post office they did not bother to inform him as to the non delivery although the information could be ascertained from the internet facility available at the post office. There is no counter evidence. Nothing was furnished as to the result of the enquiries if any made by the opposite parties as to the non delivery of the article. It was in the above circumstances that Forum found that there is deficiency in service. The complainant has paid Rs.425/- towards speed post charges. The Forum has only directed to return the above amount and also cost of Rs.350/-. No compensation as such has been awarded. In the circumstance we find that there is no scope for interference at all. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
