Postmaster General and Another Vs. Smt.Ayesha Haleema Kanndoth

Postmaster General and Another vs Smt.Ayesha Haleema Kanndoth

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Sep 12, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1109058

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1109058
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. S. Chandramohan Nair Member
Decided On: Sep 12, 2011
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/11/595 (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/06/2011 in Case No. CC/11/105 of District Kozhikode)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Postmaster General and Another

Respondent

Smt.Ayesha Haleema Kanndoth

Excerpt

justice sri.k.r.udayabhanu : president the appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in cc.105/2011 in the file of cdrf, kozhikode. the appellants are under orders to pay a sum of rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of rs.1000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the order. 2. the matter is with respect to the loss of parcel containing precious material. according to the complainant she is proficient in playing the musical instrument called vichithraveena which is played by only few people and she had forward a parcel containing cds of the tv interviews etc for considering her entitlement for a cultural award from the dravidianuniversity. the same was not received by the addressee. 3. according to the opposite parties the article could not be traced. opposite parties relied section 6 of the indian post office act that liability is limited to double the postal charges. 4. the evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of pw1;exts. a1 to a11 and b1 to b6. 5. we find that the loss of the article as a consequence of willful or negligence act of any postal employee section 6 will not be applicable. in the instant case the opposite parties/appellants could not locate the person or of the office on account of whose lapse the article was loss. hence we find that it has to be presumed that it was on account of the negligent act of the employee of the opposite party that the article was lost. the opposite parties/appellants have not made any earnest effort to fix the responsibility. in the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. the appeal is dismissed in limine. office will forward the copy of this order to the forum urgently.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in CC.105/2011 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the order.

2. The matter is with respect to the loss of parcel containing precious material. According to the complainant she is proficient in playing the musical instrument called vichithraveena which is played by only few people and she had forward a parcel containing CDs of the TV interviews etc for considering her entitlement for a cultural award from the DravidianUniversity. The same was not received by the addressee.

3. According to the opposite parties the article could not be traced. Opposite parties relied Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act that liability is limited to double the postal charges.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1;Exts. A1 to A11 and B1 to B6.

5. We find that the loss of the article as a consequence of willful or negligence act of any postal employee Section 6 will not be applicable. In the instant case the opposite parties/appellants could not locate the person or of the office on account of whose lapse the article was loss. Hence we find that it has to be presumed that it was on account of the negligent act of the employee of the opposite party that the article was lost. The opposite parties/appellants have not made any earnest effort to fix the responsibility. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties Postmaster General and Another vs Smt.Ayesha Haleema Kanndoth Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Shri. Justice K.R. Udayabhanu President &Amp; ...