Sub Postmaster and Another Vs. Krishnankutty Kadavath

Sub Postmaster and Another vs Krishnankutty Kadavath

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided May 15, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1111892

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/1111892
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: Justice Sri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President, Smt. Valsala Sarangadharan: Member &Amp; Sri. S. Chandramohan Nair: Member
Decided On: May 15, 2008
Case Number: APPEAL NO. 19 of 08
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

Sub Postmaster and Another

Respondent

Krishnankutty Kadavath

Excerpt

justice sri. k.r. udayabhanu : president the appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in op 59/05 in the file of cdrf, malappuram and under orders to pay a sum of rs.2000/- as compensation and rs.500/- towards cost. 2. the case of the complainant is that the postal article sent by the daughter of the complainant to the readers digest office did not reach the destination. the postal article was sufficiently stamped and properly addressed. she has sought for 50000/- as compensation as she could not participate in the bumper prize scheme conducted by the readers digest. 3. the contention of the opposite parties is that the op is not maintainable as the complainant who is the father is not the aggrieved and hence not a consumer. section 6 of the indian post office act is also relied on. 4. the evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and ext.a1 and a2. no evidence at all was adduced by the opposite parties. 5. the forum rejected the contention as to the non-maintainability finding that it is the petitioner who is looking after the affairs of his daughter and hence is a beneficiary and section 2(d)(ii) is squarely attracted. we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the forum. the evidence of the complainant vide proof affidavit filed that his daughter is living with him and that he is managing the affairs of his daughter stands unchallenged. further no evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties to explain the non delivery of the postal article so as to attract the 1st part of section 6 of the indian post office act. in the circumstance we find there is no reason to admit the appeal. hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/postal authorities in OP 59/05 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost.

2. The case of the complainant is that the postal article sent by the daughter of the complainant to the Readers Digest office did not reach the destination. The postal article was sufficiently stamped and properly addressed. She has sought for 50000/- as compensation as she could not participate in the bumper prize scheme conducted by the Readers Digest.

3. The contention of the opposite parties is that the OP is not maintainable as the complainant who is the father is not the aggrieved and hence not a consumer. Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is also relied on.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2. No evidence at all was adduced by the opposite parties.

5. The Forum rejected the contention as to the non-maintainability finding that it is the petitioner who is looking after the affairs of his daughter and hence is a beneficiary and Section 2(d)(ii) is squarely attracted.

We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. The evidence of the complainant vide proof affidavit filed that his daughter is living with him and that he is managing the affairs of his daughter stands unchallenged. Further no evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties to explain the non delivery of the postal article so as to attract the 1st part of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. In the circumstance we find there is no reason to admit the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties Sub Postmaster and Another vs Krishnankutty Kadavath Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Justice Sri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President, Smt. Valsala Saranga...