STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/656/2018 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POS PRESENT ADDRESS - IDUKKI DIVISION THODUPUZHA ,KERALA.

THE SDI OF POS PRESENT ADDRESS - KATTAPANA SUB DIVISION,KATTAPANA IDUKKI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ARUN JOHN PRESENT ADDRESS - PUNNATHANATHU HOUSEPAZHAYARIKANDAM IDUKKI ,KERALA.

GEETHA MAYILADUM PARAYIL PRESENT ADDRESS - PAZHAYARI KKANDAM IDUKKI ,KERALA.

MG UNIVERSITY PRESENT ADDRESS - KOTTAYAM ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 20/08/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 656/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.08.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.140/2016 on the files of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1.

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division, Thodupuzha –

685 584

2.

The SDI of Post Offices, Kattappana Sub Division, Kattappana – 685 508 (by Sandeep R.P., Authorised Representative)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Arun John, Punathanathu House, Pazhayarikandam P.O., Idukki – 685 606

2.

Geetha Mayiladumparayil, Pazhayarikandam, Idukki – 685 606

3.

Francis Pulinthanam, Temporary Postmaster, Pazhayarikandam, Idukki –

685 606

4.

M.G. University, Kottayam – 686 141

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 3 and 4 in C.C.No.140/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant is a degree holder of the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. In the month of October 2015, the complainant applied for his degree certificate along with the mark list to the university. Since the mark list and the degree certificate were not received from the university, he directly enquired about the matter with the university. Then, it was realised that the university had despatched his mark list and degree certificate on 30.10.2015. On getting the above information from the university, the complainant went to the post office and conducted an enquiry. Then, he came to know that the registered article addressed to him was entrusted with a temporary Postwoman, Geetha, who was serving in that area during the particular period. The complainant approached the said Postwoman and enquired about the registered article. She replied that she had delivered the article to someone, but she could not remember the person to whom the article was delivered. The complainant had filed complaints before the Postal Superintendent, Kattappana and Postal Inspector, Idukki. However, the article was not traced out and handed over to the complainant by the postal authorities. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

st

3. The 1 opposite party filed a version contending that she delivered the article to the father of the complainant on 04.11.2015 at the Milma Society, Pazhayarikandom. She contended that she conducted enquiry about the complainant with the local auto drivers on receipt of the registered article and the auto drivers informed the matter to the father of the complainant. On getting information, the st father of the complainant collected the article from the 1 opposite party.

rd th

4. The 3 and 4 opposite parties filed a joint version contending that the complainant was not a consumer as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the postal authorities. It was further contended that the above said st article was entrusted with the 1 opposite party, who in turn handed over the article to the father of the complainant. The post of the postman was vacant in the post office and hence the first opposite pa