Union of India (Department of Postal Services) is the petitioner in this revision petition. They are assailing the order dated 15th of February, 2006 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘State Commission’ for short). The State Commission in its order has set aside the District Forum’s order of dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondent and, while allowing the appeal of the complainant, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.47,441.50 together with interest @ 6% per annum from 31st May, 1995 till the date of realization on production of original counterfoils of the Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) purchased. Since the challenge in this revision petition is to the order of reversal of the findings of the District Forum by the State Commission, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. For easy understanding, we will continue to refer the parties as the complainant (respondent herein) and opposite party (petitioner herein), as arrayed before the District Forum. The complainant, in order to participate in a tender for a contract, had purchased 454 IPOs on 5th of April, 1999, which, according to him, were worth Rs.47,441.50 payable to the President, Government of India, Indian Railway Works. The IPOs were handed over by him to a person who claimed himself to be N.V. Katkar, Dy. Engineer, Survey of India ostensibly to garner a contract floated by the Railways for him. Soon, however, the complainant discovered that said N.V. Katkar had taken the IPOs from him by misrepresentation and in order to prevent their discharge, he gave an application on the 15th of April, 1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandrapur, requesting him to issue order to stop payment and also to give wide publicity to the matter. Subsequently, on 31st of May, 1999 a request was made by the complainant for payment of the value of the postal orders stating that he was prepared to produce the counterfoils of all the IPOs, if required. Since there was no favourable response, he gave a notice on the 11th of August, 1999 calling upon the petitioner/opposite party to make the payment of Rs.47,441.50 with 24% interest per annum from the date of purchase of the IPOs. He was thereafter forced to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur (‘District Forum’ for short). The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party. In their written reply, while they admitted the purchase of 454 IPOs on 5th of April, 1999, they submitted that the total value of the IPOs was Rs.45,230/- and not Rs.47,441.50 as claimed by the complainant. They further admitted that the complainant had given an application on the 15th of April, 1999 informing therein that he had been deceived by an imposter to hand over the IPOs and requested to stop the payment of IPOs. Later, he also made a request for the refund of the value of the IPOs on 31st of May, 1999 but the complainant was explained vide letter dated 20th of September, 2000 that the validity of IPOs is for two years from the date of issue and purchaser cannot demand refund of the amount in the absence of original IPOs as anybody can present the IPOs within the period of two years and demand its discharge/payment on production of original IPOs. The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence placed before it by both the sides, dismissed the complaint holding that since the period of two years has not expired from the date of issue of the IPOs, the complaint was pre-mature. The complainant thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, referring to Rule 253 of the Post Office Guide (Part-I), which provided that a purchaser of an IPO can obtain repayment of its value on presenting the IPO and the counterfoil at the Post Office from which the IPO was purchased, entered into a detailed discussion on the use of the word ‘and’ and held that at times the word ‘and’ could be read as ‘or’. The State Commission referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamrao Vs. District Magistrate, Thana [AIR 1952 SC 324], in which it has been held that “It is the duty of Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense will show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided.” The State Commission was, therefore, of the view that since the provision to obtain repayment stated on presenting the order and the counterfoil; and the counterfoils being in a position for being presented, directed the petitioner/opposite party to honour the claim on production of original counterfoils. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission that this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. At the outset, it may be stated that the value of the 454 IPOs even as per details given by the complainant himself in his complaint (page 65 of the paper-book) does not work out to a total of Rs.47,441.50. The figure as rightly averred by the petitioner/opposite party in their written statement is Rs.45,230/- (452 IPOs of Rs.100/- each + 1 IPO of Rs.20/- + 1 IPO of Rs.10/-). The dispute as emerging from the records of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties can be crystallized as under:- The fact of purchase of the IPOs worth Rs.45,230/- on 5th of April, 1999 by the complainant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the complainant, on discovering that he has been deceived by an impersonator, vide his letter dated 15th of April, 1999 informed the petitioner/opposite party, urging for the issuance of a ‘stop payment order’. The local postal authority had, therefore, referred the matter to the Chief Postmaster General, Nagpur on 29th of April, 1999 and the Chief Postmaster General, Nagpur vide letter dated 4th of May, 1999 had referred the case to Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai, with a request to circulate the number of IPOs purchased by the complainant and to hold up the payment of IPOs. A few days thereafter the complainant vide his letter dated 31st of May, 1999 requested the petitioner/opposite party to refund the value of the IPOs. Obviously, the refund, in the absence of the original IPOs, could not be entertained by the petitioner/opposite party as Rule 253 of the Post Office Guide (Part-I) stipulated that a purchaser of an IPO could obtain payment of its value only on presenting the same and the counterfoil and the outer limit for presentation of such IPO was initially fixed at six months extendable to a year and later extended to a period upto two years. He will also be entitled to repayment of its value after six months (which has subsequently been enhanced to one year) but not after twelve months (subsequently enhanced to two years) from the last day of the month of issue. In this regard, an extract of Rule 253 of the Post Office Guide (Part-1) is given below for easy reference : “The purchaser of an Indian Postal Order can obtain repayment of its value (but not the commission) on presenting the order and the counterfoil at the post office from which the order was purchased within six months (subsequently enhanced to one year) from the last day of the month of issue. He will also be entitled to repayment of its value after six months (one year), but not after twelve months (subsequently enhanced to two years), from the last day of the month of issue provided a second commission at the rates prescribed is paid” The petitioner/opposite party could not be faulted on this count because, firstly as the complainant was not in a position to produce the original IPOs and, secondly, since the rules provided encashment of the IPO within a period of two years from the date of its issue, it was quite possible that anybody in possession of the IPOs could seek its discharge and payment within that period and even though the details had been circulated, unless the IPOs are detected in wrong hands or the period of two years lapsed before anybody could encash the IPOs, they could not entertain the request for encashment. The order dated 28th of September, 2001 passed by the District Forum, when the period of two years had not expired, holding it to be a case of premature complaint, therefore, was perfectly in order. However, insofar as the order passed by the State Commission is concerned, it has resorted to an analysis of the word ‘and’ and ‘or’ and has held the counterfoil to be equally applicable in comparison to the main foil of the IPO. This interpretation of the State Commission, in our view, is not sustainable for the simple reason that a counterfoil cannot have the same value/weight of the main foil. A counterfoil is more in the nature of a record/receipt for the possessor and it cannot be tendered as an instrument. It may be stated that the State Commission failed to notice the stand taken by the petitioner/opposite party in their memorandum of appeal (page 127 of the paper-book), in which they had clearly averred that the IPOs in dispute having been encashed by the holder between 07.04.1999 to 09.04.1999 at Nashik before the ‘request for stop payment’ was received from the complainant, they could not be held to be deficient in rendering service. The State Commission ought to have taken note of this contention in the context of the admission by the complainant himself that he was duped into giving the IPOs to an imposter. He himself is responsible for getting into a trap and has been claiming the encashment of the IPOs which already stood encashed. Under the rules, the petitioner/opposite party could not have refused encashment by a presenter and from the records it is clear that the IPOs when purchased did not have any endorsement in favour of the President of India, as alleged by the complainant. Thus, for the fault of the complainant, the postal authorities cannot be directed to pay the value of the IPOs to the complainant, which will mean a second payment for the same IPOs, specially when rule 254 of the Post Office Guide (Part-I), which states that “Responsibility of the Post Office – After an Indian Postal Order has once been paid to whomsoever it is paid the Post Office will not be liable for any further claim, clearly protects the petitioner/opposite party from any liability once an IPO has been paid to anyone who may be in possession thereof. The order of the State Commission, therefore, deserves to be set aside and is ordered accordingly. However, we notice that when the complainant vide his letter dated 15th of April, 1999 had brought the mischief to the notice of the petitioner/opposite party, the IPOs had already been encashed. Still, the petitioner/opposite party issued advisories to their branches all over to stop the payment but it is very surprising that even though the payment had been effected within a week of the issue of the IPOs, it came to their notice only through the letter dated 16th of May, 2002. For a department which is in the business of rendering services to the public at large it should not have take such a long time to discover that the IPOs had indeed been encashed long back. To that limited extent, the petitioner/opposite party can be said to be deficient in service and for that we consider it appropriate to award a token compensation of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the complainant within a period of two months from today. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost. Revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of in these terms.