SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. This complaint is for getting an order directing the opp.parties not to create inconvenience to the complainan and for getting compensation and cost. The complainant has alleged in her complaint that the acknowledgement card for the registered documents sent by the complainant was not issued to her properly. The registered Letter No.3609 sent by the complainant through Kollam Post Office. on 15.9.2003 was issued to the addressee, but acknowledgement card was not issued to the complainant. Only after the complainant has lodged the complaint, a certificate was issued to the complainant from customer care centre informing that the letter was received by the addressee on 16.9.2003. A certificate was issued to the complainant for the receipt of a registered letter which was sent by the complainant on 3.6.2004 only after the complainant has lodged a complaint before the authorities . The same was happened for the Registered letter No.2330 which was sent through Parippally Post Office on 7.2.2005. Acknowledgement card was not received for the Reg. Letter No.974 sent by the complainant on 10.8.2006. Even though the complainant lodged a complaint before Chief Post Master, Head Post Office, Kollam on 25.8.2006 by Reg. Post No.5045, no action was taken till date. The complainant had sustained financial loss and mental agony because of the acts of opp.party. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief. The opp.parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed. As per provisions certified copies were supplied to the complainant. Complainant has not contented that the registered letter were not delivered signed A/D card is a small piece of paper which is sent to the sender as an ordinary letter. It is possible that very rarely any of such cards can be lost in transit. But the allegation of complainant that she has not received back the acknowledgement of all articles sent by her is outrageously incredible. The complainant has not furnished required particulars in the complaint which was lodged before the Post Master, Kollam . She was asked to forward a copy of the booking receipt. But it was not forwarded by the complainant. The registered letter number was not specified the complaint. The allegation that the acknowledgement cards were not correctly delivered by Bhoothakulam P.O. is not true. During the enquiry conducted by the Postal Department the complainant stated that she has no complaint against the Bhoothakulam Post Officials had admitted that all mails addressed to her were delivered. The opp.parties are not in a position to understand as to why all acknowledgement cards in respect of registered articles sent by the complainant were lost in transit. The complainant has no complaint about non delivery of any other type postal articles and she had admitted that the Bhoothakulam Post Office is prompt in delivery. Opp.parties were not committed any fraudulent, willful or default as envisaged in Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act 1898. The claim of complaint will not sustain. Opp.party is not liable to pay compensation or any other charges. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant filed affidavit and she was examined as PW.1. Ext. P1 to P7 were marked. The opp.parties also filed affidavit and DW.1 was examined. Ext. D1 to D3 were marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Compensation and cost. Points:1 & 2 The complainant has no complaint about the delivery of registered articles but the complaint is about the non-delivery of Acknowledgement Card. The complainant has lodged complaints in this regard from time to time. The opp.parties have not contended that the acknowledgement cards were properly delivered. On the other hand opp.parties served certified copies to the complainant. By the issuance of certificate copies itself, opp.parties have admitted the non delivery of the acknowledgement cards. Opp.parties have stated in the version that the allegation that the acknowledgement cards were not correctly delivered by Bhoothakulam P.O. is not true. Opp.parties further stated that signed acknowledgement card is a small piece of paper which is sent to the sender as an ordinary post and that there is possibility of such cards being lost in transit. There is some inconsistency in this statements. The opp.parties were not so particular that the acknowledgement cards were delivered properly In the cross examination of DW.1 the complainant put the question “what is the reason for sending by registered post? DW.1 answered that there is facility for sending ordinary or registered post. Sender can choose any of these methods “. A sender expects more responsibility when an article is send by registered post. But this answer reflects as if they are attributing no difference between Registered and ordinary posts. The indifferent answer itself reveals the negligent attitude of opp.parties. DW.1 has stated in cross examination that within the state the acknowledgement card after service will be delivered within 2-3 days. According to him the delay of 49 days herein for getting duplicate of acknowledgement may be because of the delay in correspondence. The same answer was repeated as the reason for the delay of 531 days for getting duplicate acknowledgement card for the article sent on 9.8.2006. A person may have his own reasons for sending an article by registered post with A/D. and the opp.party who collect money for the acknowledgment card also has a duty to return the acknowledgement card after service. If the acknowledgement card is not delivered the opp.parties have a duty to give duplicate copy of acknowledgement card in cases when application for the same is received as early as possible. The delay of 531 days in giving duplicate copy on the ground of delay in correspondence as stated by DW.1 is misfeasance in public service From these depositions and evidence given by the complainant it is clear that there is negligence from the side of opp.parties. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. . The order should be sent to the Post Master General, Thiruthananthapuram for immediate payment of decree amount and the amount may be realized from the opp.parties afterwards if he thinks so. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 13th day of May, 2009. I N D E XList of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Rajamma List of documents for the complainant P1. – Copy of Certificate from Postal Department dt. 22.10.2003 P2. – Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complaint dt. 2.3.05 P3. – Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complainant dt. 12.7.04 P3. – Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complainant dt. 19.7.04 P4. – Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complainant dt. 16.3.05 P5. –Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complainant P6. –Letter sent by Kollam Customer Care Centre to the complainant Letter sent by P7. – P7. - Senior Superintendent of Post Office to the complainant dt. 18.12.07 List of witnesses for the Opp.parties DW.1. – Kuruvila Varghese List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Attested copy of Receipt dt. 15.0.03 D2. – Attested copy of receipt from Bhoothakulam P.O. dt. 3.6.04 D3. – Attested copy of Address’s receipt dt. 7.2.05 from Parippally.P.O. | 
