Notice sent by registered A.D. post to respondent no.1 has been received back with the postal remark ‘Refused’. In view of this report, the respondent no.1 will be deemed to have been served with the notice by refusal sufficiently.

          Cause title of the order of District Forum would show that respondent no.1 is the Junior Telecom Officer (TG), Telegraph Office, Berhampur and Respondent no.2 is the same authority at Cuttack. Order would further show that a joint written version was filed on behalf of both the respondents before the District Forum. Since both the respondents are the same authority, respondent no.2 will also be deemed to have been served with the notice.

Challenge in this revision by the complainant is to the order dated 11.8.2009 of Orissa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack  dismissing appeal against the order dated 24.6.2008 of a District Forum whereby the complaint was dismissed. Complaint was filed alleging that on 07.2.2003, the petitioner had sent a telegram to his brother that the condition of their father was serious. Telegram was, however,  not delivered to the brother. Non -  delivery thereof had caused mental agony to the petitioner. In the joint written version, the stand taken by the respondents / opposite parties was that the telegram addressed to A. Chandra Rao, UCO Bank, Jail Road, Daraghabazar, Cuttack was delivered  to him on 07.02.2003 at 15.30 hrs and the complaint was not maintainable under law. The fora  below have taken the view that the case involved complicated question of facts and law and it, therefore, did not deserve to be decided  in summary jurisdiction. Complaint / appeal were, thus, dismissed.

          I have heard the petitioner. Only issue which fell for determination before the fora  below was whether the said telegram was/was not delivered to the brother of the petitioner.  This issue did not involve adjudication of complicated question of fact and law as opined by the fora below and could have been decided on evidence to be led by the parties. Order passed by fora below, therefore, deserves to be set aside being totally erroneous and case remanded to the District Forum for complaint being decided afresh on merit.

          Accordingly while allowing revision, aforesaid two orders passed by fora below are set aside and case is remanded to the District Forum for decision afresh in the light of the observation made in preceding para of the order. No order as to cost.

Parties will appear before the concerned District Forum for direction on 14.12.2010.