The facts in brief of the case are that the Complainant on 25.09.2010 received a mail from Reader Digest informing that he would be receiving the envelope from the Company containing important document that need to be filled up for making him eligible for the official sweepstakes. On 29.09.2010 he received a piece of paper with Post Office stamp and the paper was part of the sweepstakes entry document. This paper was supposed to be received along with other document in an envelope but the other documents were missing which were necessary for completing the formalities for the entry of the official sweepstakes. He complained the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Meghalaya Shillong on 20.09.2010 for resolving the matter. However, the department failed to take any satisfactory action of his complaint and hence this case. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party OP to file show cause and accordingly the OP filed show cause on 04.03.2011. In the show cause filed by the OP it was mentioned that the complaint of the complainant was entertained and verified and since the Reader Digest sent the material through ordinary book post, no other material record could be verified except information that has been collected and it was found that there is no material left in the Post Office. The book post being an open cover, the postal authority is not responsible for any eventuality even to the extent of non receipt of the requisite documents by the addressee. Hence there was no delay in delivery of the letters and also there was no negligence or deficiency in the service rendered by the OP. In the rejoinder filed by Complainant, he mentioned that the single page document that he received did not bear any postage nor any stamp of the Post Office from where the document originated and it is very unlikely that such document would travel without the department postage or stamp of office of origin. This clearly indicates that the said document must have come in an envelope which was duly stamped with the place of origin along with the date. It is very likely that the package got damage and all documents were lost except for the single document received by him. This clearly falls into the category of offence under section 42 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The Complainant has also cited the cases of Union of India through Secretary Department of Post, New Delhi and Sub Post Master Versus Bhojraj Singh in an Appeal No 912 of 2009 2 AND Superintendent of Post Office Versus Upovokta Suraksha Parishad 1997 1 CPR 11 NC wherein it was decided that these authorities have been taking shelter under section 6 of the Indian Postal Act 1898 but it does not provide a blanket exemption to the Postal authorities from liability for loss or mis delivery etc. The OP submitted a list of 4 witnesses who were examined and cross examination by the Complainant. Shri Nirmal was examined on 13.05.2011. He is working as a Post Man in Shillong GPO. In his deposition he mentioned that the letter was an ordinary book post addressed to the Complainant and he delivered this letter as normal usual practice. In his post box no 12 which is allotted to him from where he collects the letter, he did not find any other documents or papers. Shri S.Dohling was examined on 15.05.2011. He mentioned that he is working as Sorting Overseer and his duty is to sort out addresses of the addressees and put in the boxes as per addresses so as to enable the postman to take the letters for delivery. In his cross examination he mentioned that he did not remember specifically about the letter in question as he is to sort out thousands of letters every day. Shri Teiskhem Gatphoh was examined on 13.05.2011 and during his examination he mentioned that he is a Group D staff of Post Office GPO and his duty is to open the sealed bag of letters and to put the seal on letters, he also acknowledge the letter exhibit as Exbt 1 addressed to the Complainant and also acknowledge the seal of Shillong GPO as Exbt 1/1. Shri Dwijendra Kanti Dey was examined as the last witness. He is working as Senior Post Master at Shillong GPO and acknowledged that he is aware of the entire facts of the case and also has filed the show cause reply. On cross examination he mentioned that the letters after reaching the Post Office and stamp for despatched. The books post letters are never seal but the letters without postage received in the Post Office are stamped as unpaid and double charges are levied on the recipient. He also submitted that on the complaint of the Complainant the enquiry was done by the Assistant Superintendent of Post and in his action taken was report it was found that there were no material left in the Post Office. In the present case there were no original postage stamp nor receipt stamp on the document as required under section 15 chapter 3 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. This Forum has perused the documents on record and has taken into consideration the deposition of the parties and show cause filed by the OP. The Department of Post has taken prompt action on the complaint received by the Complainant as it is clear by the letter from Senior Superintendent of Post office Meghalaya Division Shillong, directing the SDIPO Central Sub Division Shillong to enquire into the matter and submit the report within 3 days. However, what was the outcome of the enquiry is not a part of this case record. From the evidence produced before this Forum were are able to make out that the despatch made by the Reader Digest to the Complainant was through ordinary book post for which the terms of delivery are different from other categories like registered post. The Senior Post Master Shillong GPO in his deposition has mentioned that when the letter is received without the postage stamp, double charges were levied to the recipient. In the present case, the said letter was not stamped with any postage even though it was delivered to the recipient/complainant without charging any amount from him. This indicates that the postal department has not followed the procedure while delivering the instant letter. However, on the other side the Complainant also has not been able to prove beyond doubt his claim that there were other documents which were sent along with the letter by Reader Digest which could have been otherwise proved had the said letter been posted under other category like registered post or insured post etc. Hence therefore this Forum is of the opinion that there was a deficiency in service as defined in section 2 g of the C.P. Act, 1986 to the extent that the Department of Post did not respond satisfactorily to the complaint made by the Complainant and also could not give satisfactory reply on the delivery of this letter without postage to the Complainant without levying the penalty charges as required. But it is difficult for the Forum to conclude that the Complainant could have won the sweepstakes as offered by the Reader Digest but for the reasons as mentioned in the complaint. We therefore dispose off this case by awarding an amount of Rs 2,000 to the Complainant towards the deficiency in service by the OP as referred above. The OP is directed to pay the said amount to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Case disposed off.