SUPDT. OF POST OFFICESAppella vs V.VENKATSWAMY

THE unsuccessful opposite parties in C.D. No. 35/97 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Warangal, are the appellants before this Commission.

THE facts in brief are the complainant obtained a cheque for Rs. 3,000/- from the principal District Munsif, Warangal in E.P. No. 164/93 towards the decretal amount payable to him in that E.P. drawn on the S.B.H. Branch, Hanamkonda. THE complainant deposited the cheque but the amount was not realised. Inquiries made by the complainant with opposite party No. 3 i.e., Indian Overseas Bank revealed that as the amount under the cheque could not be realised the cheque was returned to him under R.P.A.D. on 25.3.1995. THE complainant has not received the cheque. THE complainant addressed a letter to opposite parties 1 and 2 but he has not received any reply. THEn he issued a registered notice. On account of the negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, he was put to loss. THEreupon, he approached the District Forum. The first opposite party filed its written version denying all the allegations in the complaint. It is further stated that opposite party No. 3 through its letter dated 3.7.1995 requested acknowledgement for the non-receipt of the registered letter and the first opposite party sent a letter intimating that the registered letter was acknowledged by one Baby Saraswathi.

Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards to and fro expenses from Bhadrachalam to Hanamkonda, to pay interest on Rs. 3,000/- from 18.3.1995 till the date of realisation at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and stress, to pay Rs. 150/- towards notice expenses, besides costs of Rs. 500/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said finding and order, the opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant was issued a cheque for Rs. 3,000/- towards the decretal amount due to him in E.P. No. 164/93 by the Principal District Munsif, Warangal. He presented the cheque to the third opposite party for realisation of the amount. As no amount was received by him he made inquiries with the third opposite party and learnt that the cheque was returned to him under the R.P.A.D. on 25.3.1995 as the amount could not be collected. Though the complainant addressed a letter to opposite parties 1 and 2 as there was no response from them he got issued a registered notice to them.

THE defence of the opposite parties is that they delivered the letter to one Baby Saraswathi. Baby Saraswathi is the daughter of the complainant, who is a minor. On behalf of opposite party No. 1 its Public Relations Inspector was examined and he admitted that as per Ex. A-7, the name of the addressee is V. Venkataiah but the letter was delivered to Baby Saraswathi. He also admitted that the letter was not returned to the third opposite party and that in any event the letter should have been delivered or served on the addressee. He also further admitted that they have not filed the sheet to show that the registered letter which was delivered to the addressee was the same registered letter because it was destroyed. THE admission of R.W. 1 is sufficient to hold that there was wilful negligence and default on the part of opposite parties in delivering the registered letter to the complainant, and the complainant sustained a loss as claimed by him. THE District Forum has rightly awarded compensation. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 500/-. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.