Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

           Member

1.     The Complainant Sri. Mallikarjuna.N.L has filed the complaint Under section 12 of CP Act,1986 against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-towards damages and  cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.

2.     The complainant submits that he has issued a legal notice on behalf of his client on 07.08.2017, addressed to Bhavani.M. W/o Shekar, # 35, First Floor, 2^{nd A} Main Road, 2^nd cross, 1^st Stage, Sharadadevinagara, Mysuru-22 through registered post same has been returned back to him by 2^nd opposite party with a postal shara stating that item delivery attempted–left India, on 10.08.2017. Once again he got issued a legal notice to the aforesaid address on 16.08.2017, same was return as refused by the addressee. On the same day, another notice was issued through courier and same was served to the addressee. Thereby alleged that the 2^nd opposite party has intentionally not served the notice to the addressee. Hence the aggrieved alleged the deficiency in service by the opposite parties. A legal notice was issued to both the opposite parties calling upon to give clarification. The opposite party gave an untenable reply, hence the aggrieved has filed this complaint seeking reliefs.

3.     Both the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed version denying the allegation. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the allegations are referred to the registered letter booked at the post office more than two years back. Since the preservation period of keeping records have been elapsed the delivery slips of the said period are not available with them for providing clarification. The sub-Postmaster, Ramakrish nanagar post office, Mysuru has replied the legal notice vide letter No.42/19-20 dated 03.08.2019, stating that the particulars of the registered letter referred by the complainant was not available. Since a preservation period for getting the records was elapsed, as per Rules as envisioned in the Postal Manual Volume V. Further requested the complainant to furnish the particulars of the returned registered letter in question to ascertain the genuineness of the remarks made by the Postman. However, the complainant failed to respond to the reply notice and has approached this Commission seeking reliefs with ulterior motive. Hence the complaint is not maintainable, as such prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4.          Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief same has been taken as Pw1 and Rw1 respectively and also filed several documents in support of their submissions, opposite party counsel has filed written arguments. Heard the oral arguments of both sides and by perusing the material on record matter posted for order.

5. The points that would arose for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?

2. What order?

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7. Point No.1:- The complainant alleged that the letter sent by him on 07.08.2017 to the addressee was returned with a postal endorsement stating that the “Item delivery attempted–left India” on 10.08.2017. Once again he got issued another legal notice to the same address on 16.08.2017 which was returned as refused by addressee and then another notice issued through courier was served to the addressee. Thereby he has alleged that the opposite party has intentionally not served the notice to the addressee, thereby they have committed deficiency in service. Hence filed the complaint seeking reliefs.

8.       In support of the aforesaid particulars the complainant has filed 12 documents including a track consignment document to show that the notice said to have been returned to him on 10.08.2017 with an endorsement “item delivery attempted left India”. Further produced office copy of another notice dated 16.08.2017 to prove that the notice was refused by the addressee. He has also produced an unopened envelope which is marked as (Exhibit-7). Further complainant has produced a receipt issued by the professional couriers to prove that he has sent a notice on 16.08.2017(Exhibit-8). Further he has produced an office copy of the legal notice dated 29.07.2019 addresseed to the opposite parties (Exhibit-9) and also a letter written by the Sub-Postmaster on 03.08.2019 reporting the non availability of the records and also to furnish the Xerox copy of the postal covers, which are returned un-served, to ascertain the truth.

9.     The opposite parties counsel contended that the records relating to registered letters were preserved only for a period of 1 ½  years. As per Rules, as envisaged in the Postal Manual Volume V. Hence they are not in a position to give any clarification with regard to the alleged non delivery of the registered postal cover. Further contended that, the complainant is filed after the lapse of considerable period. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. As such the opposite parties claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.

10.     On perusal of the material evidence and also documents available on records  and considering the arguments, this commission considered that the opposite parties have not satisfactorily carried out their duties in delivery of the registered documents to the addressee and have simply returned the documents of the complainant with an endorsement thereby the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and hence they are liable to pay compensation for the damages caused to the complainant. Accordingly point no.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

11.  Point No.2:- With the above discussions, the complaint filed by Sri. Mallikarjuna. N.L is hereby deserves to be allowed in part. Hence we proceed to pass the following:

                                                                                               :: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-for the damages and mental agony and a sum of Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant  in 45 days from the date of this order.
3. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.