V.AYYAPPAN Vs. HEAD POSTMASTER PONNANI
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2008-6-2
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 21,2008

V.Ayyappan Appellant
VERSUS
Head Postmaster Ponnani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.K.ABDULLA SONA, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is preferred from the order dated 31.12.1998 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP No. 246/1998.
(2.)THE appellant is the complainant in the above OP filed against respondent opposite parties for claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the delay of delivery of the telegram by the opposite parties to the complainant in connection with the death of the complainants son. The opposite parties appeared and denied and disputed the deficiency of service. The version filed by the opposite parties and they contended that the above disputed telegram could not be delivered as the address furnishing the telegram was incorrect and incomplete. As per the address given the addressee is a resident of Vadakkekara house in the delivery area of Ponnani Head Post Office. As the addressee could not be located, the telegram remained undelivered. According to the opposite parties they are not responsible for the late delivery and they have not committed any negligence on their part and they are not liable for payment of any compensation as prayed in the OP. The complainant has examined as PW1 and for the part of the complainant Ext. P1 to P5 (documents) were marked. In this case the Postal Assistant of Ponnani Post Office was examined as DW1 and only one document was marked from the part of the opposite party as Ex. R1. The counsel for the complainant and the representative of the opposite parties were heard in the forum below and after evaluating all the available evidence and the submissions from both sides. The forum below dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the complainant.
(3.)WHEN this appeal was taken up for hearing, both parties referred and argued the case based on the ground urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.
The point for decision is solely whether there is any deficiency in service in the delivery of the telegram to the complainant in time and if it is so, what compensation can be entitled.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.