Full Judgment
JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the complainants in OP.270/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. It is the case of the Complainants that the money orders for the period of March, April, May, June, July, August and September 2003 sent by the son of the first complainant to the first complainant were not delivered. His son is working in the army. The above money orders were served wrongly to one Zacharia @ Scaria Mullasseril. When enquired the complainants were told that no such money orders have been received. After further enquiries and on complaint filed a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Post Office authorities and realizing that the money orders were received not to the correct person the amounts were recovered and paid to the complainant . The money orders were for a sum of Rs.3500/- each. The complainants suffered a lot on account of the non delivery of the money orders as the insurance premium and bank loan could not be remitted. It is the contention of the complainants that the money orders for May 2003 and October 2003 were delivered to the first complainant. although despatched in the same address. The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered, Rs.526/- for loss in LIC policy and Rs.206/- penal interest collected by the Bank.
2. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that the address written was not at all adequate to identify the first complainant. The address was only Sri.Scaria, F/o Biju Scaria, LMK(OFC), Idukki Colony. Another person with the similar name Zacharia @ Scaria Mullasseril, Idukki Colony P.O who was residing near the Post Office and employed in the Office of the KSEB had his two sons working in the army and he had given standing instruction at the Post Office. The money orders used to be sent by his sons also. Only in the month of May 2003 and October 2003 the first complainant came to the Post Office and collected the amounts. The mistake is a bona fide one for went of proper address. The amounts were recovered and paid to the complainants.
3. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of the PWs 1 and 2 Exts.P1 to P17; R1 to R3.
4. It is admitted by the complainant that after filing of the complaint they received the money order amount for the month on May 2003 after realizing from the other Zacharia. Evidently the address in the money order was not sufficient to identify to the first complainant. His name is Iype Scaria, Thadathil House. It is on account of the non mentioning the correct name of the person in the money order form that the wrong delivery was occasioned. We find that the Forum has considered the matter in detail. There is no patent illegality in the appreciation of the evidence. We find that there is no reason to disturb the findings of the forum below. The appeal is dismissed.