Smt. Mannorama has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that she is the consumer of the opposite parties as on 3/2/2007 she had sent ATM card to her son at Nagpur in duly addressed envelope. She paid Rs.25/- to the opposite parties for sending ATM card vide speed post bearing no SP EE 778991404. The son of the complainant was in need of money for his personal requirement. She wrote a correct address on the face of the envelope to be delivered to her son at Nagpur but till today the speed pst envelope has not reached addressee which has caused harassment to not only to the complainant rather to her son as well and on the otherhad there was chance of money being stolen by some one because of the non delivery of speed post. Then the complainant wrote request letter to the opposite parties which was duly received by them. The opposite parties were negligent in performing their duties and the ATM card of the complainant lost due to the negligence of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17-5-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. J.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply in which the opposite parties admitted that a speed post article No. EE 778991404 IN dated 3/2/2007 was got booked by Maor Lal addressed to Bum Bhandary, Nagpur but the contents of said speed post are not known to us and Rs.25/- also received by the opposite parties on account of postage. The said article was received at Nagpur on 7/2/2007 which was further sent to V.V.Nagar Nagpur PO-440015 on 7/2/2007 and SPA under reference was returned to sendor with remarks of Incomplete address. Speed Post Centre Faridabad dispatched the said envelope to Faridkot but the same has not been traceable at Faridkot. It might had been lost during the course of transmission. A complaint dated 15/2/2007 was received by Post Master, Faridkot. The opposite parties were never negligent in respect of their duties. Under Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act the post office is exempted from all liabilities regarding delay, loss or damage of any postal article during the course of transmission. So the complaint be dismissed with costs.<br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-2, reply of letter dated 22/2/2007 Ex.C-3 and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sher Singh Superintendent Post Office, Faridkot Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant sent ATM card to her son at Nagpur in duly addressed and enveloped on 3/2/2007 through speed post bearing No. SP EE 778991404 . Her son was in need of money for personal requirement due to ATM card having not received by him he could not meet with his demand of money. There is loss of letter containing ATM card so complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental tension caused by the opposite parties due to deficiency of service. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. The article was dispatched to Faridabad speed post Centre by Nagpur as there was incomplete address. The opposite parties have never been negligent in respect of their duties. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the dispatch receipt Ex.C-2 of the letter it is made out that one Maor Lal of Faridkot have dispatched letter to Bum Bhandary on 3/2/2007 from Faridkot head office of the post offices. Since it was having incomplete address so the opposite parties wrote letter Ex.C-3 to the complainant that her complaint for non delivery of the article of speed post letter was received by the opposite parties. They are inquired into it and will write to her shortly. In the meanwhile if the complainant has heard anything from the addressee regarding the disposal the same may please be intimated to the post office. <br /> 11. From these facts it cannot be said that the letter sent by Maor Lal has been lost in the transmission. Matter still in under investigation of the opposite parties. Complainant have not replied letter Ex.C-3 to the opposite parties. <br /> 12. Mannorama complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as some letter was sent by one Maor Lal. Complainant in her complaint also has not made mention complete address including name of her son where the letter was sent at least at Nagpur. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 15/10/2007<br /> <br />