1. Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 31st December, 2004 passed by the Rajasthan Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (For short he State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 1268/2001, 1269/2001, 1270/2001 and 889/2003. The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the Union of India and Post Master General against the order dated 09-08-2001 passed by the District Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur I in Complaint Cases No. 17/2001 and other complaints. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaints filed by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered, besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses with the stipulation that the amount shall be payable within one month failing which the awarded amount shall be paid along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Similar orders were passed in other three complaints i.e. 1268/2001, 1269/2001 and 889/2003 thereby awarding a compensation of Rs.60,000/- in total including the cost of litigation. 2. The State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the opposite parties Union of India and Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle and upheld the order passed by the District Forum by giving additional reasons and by modifying the order of the District Forum thereby directing the appellants (Union of India and Post Master General) to recover the awarded amount from the erring and delinquent officials individually or collectively in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 and Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh 2004 CTJ (SC)(CP) 605. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the Union of India and postal authorities have filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. We have heard Mr. A.S. Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondent/complainant and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which lead to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant in his complaint was in regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities in treating the type written matter in the post cards as printed matter and therefore, declaring that the post cards were insufficiently stamped to the extent of Rs.3.50/-. Some of the addressees declined to accept the delivery of the post cards and the post cards were returned to the complainant and he had to pay the alleged deficient postal stamp fee on the said post cards which caused him a great mental harassment besides his prestige was also lowered down in the society, he being a respectable person having sent his wishes to the members of the society. The question as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of postal department was considered and answered on a consideration of Clause No. 2 1344 of Postal Guide, which is reproduced in the orders. On an interpretation of the same, the Fora below found that the postal cards so issued by the complainant were not deficient in the postal stamps and therefore, it could not be so notified and deeming deficient and therefore directed the payment of compensation to the above extent. 5. Mr. Singh, counsel for the petitioners would assail the orders passed by the Fora below mainly on the ground that there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner and the said finding is based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence and material produced on record and reading the interpretation of the above refereed Clause 2 1344 of the Postal Guide. On the other hand counsel for the respondent fully supports the orders of the Fora below. In addition, he has brought to our notice a Circular No. PG/12-26/2000 dated 05-09-2001 emanating from Chief P.M.G. Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur addressed to all concerned authorities, which we would like to extract herein below:-- ub:-- Irregular taxing of Post Card (s) the matter other than The name and address of the sender in written by type Written and treating it as printing matter. I am directed to say that recently District Consumer Protection Forum, Jaipur has pronounced his decision against the Postal Department for making the payment of heavy amount of compensation and complainantsexpenditure to the complainant. The Gist of the case is as under:-- Complainant has sent post cards bearing a message of ardonduring the month of Sept., 1999 & 2000 to his near relatives, friends, etc. residing at various placed in the country. The name and addressee of the sender were printed on Post Cards but the message in limited words, for addressees was written by type writer. The office of posting, delivery had taxed these post cards treating as printed post cards. The addressees on receipt refused to pay the postage due on them and refused to take delivery. Accordingly, these post cards returned back through RLO Jaipur to delivery PO for delivery to the sender and were delivered after recovering the amount of postage due from him. Aggrieved with it, the complainant filed complaints in DCPF, Jaipur for irregular taxing of post cards against the Department and the Forum allowing the complaints imposed heavy fine on the Deptt. Attention is drawn to clause No. 2-1344 of Postal Guide which is reproduced below. hen matter other than the name and address of the sender and the addressee is printed otherwise reproduced by machine but not a type writer, the post card becomes printed post card for purpose of postage. The ruling is very clear in the matter. The action of Post Offices for taxing the post cards was irregular resulting in to heavy penalty on the Department imposed by the consumer court. You are, therefore, requested to bring the contents of this letter to all the offices under your control and ensure to follow the instructions strictly to avoid such reoccurrence. 6. On the strength of the said circular, counsel submits that by no stretch the post cards issued by the complainant with typed written matter, could be treated as the printed material by a machine as has been amply clarified in the said circular. On careful reading of the same in the said circular, we have no manner of doubt that the matter other than the name and address of the sender and the address printed by the typewriter did not fall within the purview of the clause. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner authorities to have declared the post cards as deficient in postal stamp. We, therefore, affirm the findings of the Fora below which are based on correct and proper appreciation of the matter. 7. Mr. Singh would then contend that even if the findings of the Fora below in regard to the deficiency on the part of the postal authorities it to be upheld by this Commission, the State Commission was not justified in giving a direction to the petitioners to realized/recover the awarded amount from the delinquent/erring employees of the postal department who are petty low paid officials having. It is also submitted that the compensation so awarded is also on higher side. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that there is no strait jacket formula to work out compensation in such cases but still the same has to be awarded going by the general principles laid down by the Courts and Forums. In the case and going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and extent of deficiency for which the petitioners were found guilty, we do not consider that the compensation awarded is on higher side. We are informed that orders passed by the Fora below have been complied with in as much as the sum of Rs.44,000/- out of awarded amount of Rs.60,000/- stands paid to the respondent/complainant and balance Rs.16,000/- required to be deposited in the Legal Aid Cell has already been deposited with the District Forum. The deposited amount shall be transferred to the Legal Aid Cell of the District Forum. 8. As regards the directions of the State Commission to recover the awarded amount from the erring/delinquent officials, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the delinquent officials were of lower levels, we consider it quite hard if the amount is recovered from those officials. We, therefore, set aside the said direction. The revision petition is partly allowed only to the said extent, all other stipulations in the order remaining unchanged.