The Post Master, HPO, V/S Sri. Gunnam Gunna Murthy - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 157/06

Sri. Gunnam Gunna Murthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master, HPO, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. C.Keshava Rao

14 Nov 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 157/06

Sri. Gunnam Gunna Murthy						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Post Master, HPO, The Post Master, Jawalagera Post. The Superintendent of Post Office, The Branch Post Master,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gunnam Gnana Murthy against the four Respondents (1) The Post Master, Raichur Head Post Office Raichur, (2) The Post Master, Jawalagera Post, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur, (3) The Superintendent of Post Office, Raichur and (4) The Branch Post Master, Ramathnal village, Jawalagera Post, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant had agreed to purchase 4 acres of agricultural land in Sy.No.61 Hissa b-2 situated at Pothnal village in Manvi Tq. of District Raichur vide Agreement of Sale dt. 01-08-06 from Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi. In the said agreement it was agreed that before September-2006 the complainant should get executed the conveyance deed from the said vendor by paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- therefore the time was essence of the contract. Since the ready and willingness is the important aspect of the case, the complainant had sent a legal notice dt. 15-09-06 through his counsel under RPAD through Sath Kacheri Post Office, of the OP.No-1 vide Register Letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 to the vendor Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp, Tq. Manvi Dist: Raichur by intimating his readiness to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- with a request to execute the sale deed. The complainant has not received the acknowledgement from the vendor, he enquired OP.No-1 through his counsel by letter dt. 06-10-06 sent under RPAD duly enquiring about the status of the said registered letter. In reply OP.No-1 vide letter dt. 10-10-06 assured the counsel for the complainant of looking into the said matter. Since the complainant not able to know the status of the said registered letter and he was anxious to get registered the conveyance deed, he once again sent another reply notice on 06-10-06 to the said vendor by giving similar notice. Much to the surprise of the complainant, the OP.No-2 retained the first registered letter with him without serving on the said vendor and only after receipt of the enquiry letter made by his counsel with Op.No-1, he delivered to the first RPAD and also the second RPAD letter No. 2084 simultaneous on the same date i.e, 11-10-06. In view of the negligence act of the Ops in not delivering the registered letter within the stipulated period and thereby keeping the same for un-usual larger period has defeated the very object of the said notice which in-turn put the complainant in situation which is affecting his rights over the land in question. The vendor has now not come forward to execute the sale deed since the notice in-question expressing the readiness of the complainant to pay the balance sale consideration could not be conveyed to her because of the negligent act of the Ops. Such act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency of service. OP.No-3 is the in-charge of Raichur District Postal Department. Therefore Ops are liable to pay damages of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and also mental agony. 2. In response to service of notice Ops 1 to 4 appeared through District Government Pleader. Op.No-3 has filed written statement which is adopted by other Ops. The Ops did not know anything about the agreement made by the complainant with Smt. Padmavathi. The nature of the agreement made and the balance of amount to be paid to the complainant by the vendor is also not known to the Ops. The cover has been sent to Smt. Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp by RPAD vide receipt No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 of Sath Kacheri Post Office Raichur. But the nature of the contents or documents in the cover is not known to the Ops. In response to the letter of the complaint dt. 06-10-06 received from his counsel the matter was enquired into. The registered letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 Sathkacheri Post Office Raichur was delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06 by the Ramathnal Branch Post Office and the date of delivery of the letter has been communicated to the counsel of the complainant on 14-10-06. The said registered letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 was not retained by the OP.No-2 as alleged, but it was sent to Ramthnal Branch Post Office by Op.No-2 on 18-09-06 on the date of receipt for delivery to the addressee and that since the addressee Smt. Padmavathi was found not residing within the delivery jurisdiction of Ramthnal Branch Post Office it was held in deposit at Ramathnal Post Office for enquiry as a part of Jeenur Camp is covered by the Byagwat and Hirekotnekal Branch Post Offices in Manvi Tq. On enquiries with the members of the public it was learnt that the addressee Smt. Padmavathi is actually residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which does not fall under the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office and that by that time another registered letter was received in the name of the said addressee and both registered letters were delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06. The registered letter was held in deposit at Rahamnthal Branch Office beyond the stipulated period of (7) days with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to Sender with remarks No such addressee in Jeenur Camp. There is no willful delay on the part of the Ops but delay is due to in-correct address written on the cover by the sender. The registered letter could not be delivered within stipulated period for the reasons stated above. Hence there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the Ops. The delay in delivery of the registered letter is due to in-correct address written on the cover and the Ops are in no way responsible for non-execution of sale deed by the vendor. Hence the claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is not maintainable. Further as per section 6 of the Post Office Act the Central Government is exempted from any liability by reasons of loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission by Post. Hence for all these reasons the Ops have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. In rebuttal the Ops have filed sworn-affidavit of Op.No-4 by way of examination-in-chief which is adopted by other Ops. But they have not adduced any documentary evidence. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. The D.G.P. for Ops has filed written arguments by way of reply. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Ops for belated delivery of the registered letter dt. 15-09-06 on 11-10-06, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had sent a registered letter/cover No. 1769 on 15-09-06 addressed to Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi which was received by Ramathnal Branch Office on 18-09-06 for delivery. According to the complainant, through this registered cover he had sent legal notice to addressee-vendor intimating his readiness to pay balance sale consideration for execution of registered sale deed as per agreement of sale. The complainant has filed Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dt. 01-08-06 between him and Smt. Padma @ Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi at Ex.P-1. He has produced Office copy of legal notice dt. 15-09-06 issued by RPAD at Ex.P-2(1). Xerox copy of registered postal receipt bearing No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 at Ex.P-2(2) and Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement dt. 11-10-06 at Ex.P-2(3). He has produced office copy of legal notice dt. 06-10-06 addressed to Smt. V. Padmavathi at Ex.P-3(1). Xerox copy of postal receipt bearing No. 2084 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-3(2) and Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement dt. 11-10-06 at Ex.P-3(3). He has produced office copy of legal notice dt. 06-10-06 issued to Post Master, Raichur at Ex.P-4. The original postal receipt bearing No. 2085 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-4(1) and reply letter dt. 11-10-06 of Post Master Raichur/Customer Care Center at Ex.P-5 and Another reply letter of Raichur Customer Care Center Post Office dt. 14-10-06 at Ex.P-6. 7. The O.P. in their written version at Para-5 have clearly stated that the registered letter was held in deposit with Ramathnal Branch Post Office beyond stipulated period of (7) days with good-intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning with the remarks that no such addressee in Jeenur Camp so there is no willful delay on part of the Respondents but the delay is due to in-correct address written on the cover by the sender/complainant. The postal acknowledgement of the registered letter bearing NO. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 produced at Ex.P-2(3) shows the address of the addressee as Smt. Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi. This postal acknowledgement shows the delivery date seal of the Ramathnal Post Office as 11-10-06. It also shows the signature of the addressee V.Padma in- token of receipt of registered cover on 11-10-06. It is not the case of the OP that the registered cover dt. 15-09-06 was delivered to the addressee Padma by other Branch Post Office, than Ramathnal Branch Post Office in-order to substantiate their contention in Para-5 that the addressee Padmavathi was found not residing within the delivery jurisdiction on Ramathnal Branch Post Office and they held up the registered cover for enquiry since a part of Jeenur Camp is delivered by the Byagwat & Hirekotnekal Branch Post Offices in Manvi Tq. It is also not the case of the Ops that the addressee V.Padma was out of station at the time of delivery of the said registered cover. If this is so there was no reason to keep the registered cover with Ramathnal Branch Post Office especially when according to them V.Padmavathi was not at all residing within the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office. Further, when according to the Ops a part of Jeenur Camp covered by Byagwat & Hirekotnekal Branch Post Office and that they came to know that the addressee V.Padma is actually residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which does not fall the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office. When this is so it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that they retained the registered cover with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to sender with remarks no such address in Jeenur Camp. Of course a duty caste upon the delivery Post Office to retain the registered cover for a period of (7) days in-order to deliver to the addressee who will be out of station. But when the Ops have specifically stated that the addressee V.Padmavathi was not residing in Jeenur Camp and that she was residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which is beyond delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office, then the contention that they retained the registered cover with good intention to deliver to the addressee does hold any water. 8. In this case surprisingly enough, the first registered cover dt. 15-09-06 at Ex.P-1 which is received by the Ramathnal Branch Post Office on 18-09-06, has been delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06 simultaneously with the second registered cover sent by the complainant to the same addressee on same address bearing No. 2084 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-3 as admitted by them and as reveled from Ex.P-3(3) Postal Acknowledgement. So it shows that the Ramathnal Branch Post Office without making any efforts slept over the matter of delivering to the addressee and after receipt of the second cover they woke-up and delivered both the registered covers to the addressee. Even the Ops have not produced any Register/Book showing reason for non-delivery of the registered cover/article within the stipulated period of (7) days or even beyond stipulated period on (7) days when according to them they retained the registered cover in-question with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to the sender with remarks as no such addressee in Jeenur Camp. Because a strict duty caste on the delivering officer of the Post Office to deliver the postal articles to the addressee within the stipulated period of (7) days or else to return to the sender with remarks what they found in their attempt for delivery of the article. In the absence of any co-gent and convincing material it cannot be said that the Ramathnal Branch Post Office retained the registered cover with good intention for its delivery even beyond stipulated period of (7) days instead of returning to its sender. 9. If according to Ops, the address of the addressee on the cover was either in-correct or the addressee was not at all residing in the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office, then what prevented then from returning the same to the sender with appropriate remarks. Of course the postal authorities are not knowing or expected to know what contains in the Registered/ article cover and whether it is important or not. The only duty caste upon them to deliver the registered article promptly to the addressee within the stipulated period and if not for any reasons, then they have to return to the sender with appropriate remarks. Without doing so the Ops have un-successfully taken the shelter of defence that they retained the cover with intention to deliver to the addressee without returning to its sender with appropriate remarks. Hence the exemption clause of section 6 of Post Office Act will not come to their rescue for simple reason that the exemption clause is applicable for the loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damage to any Postal article during the course of transmission. But here the postal registered cover dt. 15-09-06 has been received on 18-09-06 and it was retained by the Rahamthnal Branch Post Office beyond (7) days with the alleged good intention of delivering to the addressee without returning to the sender with appropriate remarks. So if all these factors are taken into account it amply shows deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in delivering the registered cover in time. Therefore viewed from any angle we find clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Therefore Point NO-1, is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with cost of litigation. In-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 1,500/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Ops shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Ops shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-11-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gunnam Gnana Murthy against the four Respondents (1) The Post Master, Raichur Head Post Office Raichur, (2) The Post Master, Jawalagera Post, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur, (3) The Superintendent of Post Office, Raichur and (4) The Branch Post Master, Ramathnal village, Jawalagera Post, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant had agreed to purchase 4 acres of agricultural land in Sy.No.61 Hissa b-2 situated at Pothnal village in Manvi Tq. of District Raichur vide Agreement of Sale dt. 01-08-06 from Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi. In the said agreement it was agreed that before September-2006 the complainant should get executed the conveyance deed from the said vendor by paying balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- therefore the time was essence of the contract. Since the ready and willingness is the important aspect of the case, the complainant had sent a legal notice dt. 15-09-06 through his counsel under RPAD through Sath Kacheri Post Office, of the OP.No-1 vide Register Letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 to the vendor Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp, Tq. Manvi Dist: Raichur by intimating his readiness to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- with a request to execute the sale deed. The complainant has not received the acknowledgement from the vendor, he enquired OP.No-1 through his counsel by letter dt. 06-10-06 sent under RPAD duly enquiring about the status of the said registered letter. In reply OP.No-1 vide letter dt. 10-10-06 assured the counsel for the complainant of looking into the said matter. Since the complainant not able to know the status of the said registered letter and he was anxious to get registered the conveyance deed, he once again sent another reply notice on 06-10-06 to the said vendor by giving similar notice. Much to the surprise of the complainant, the OP.No-2 retained the first registered letter with him without serving on the said vendor and only after receipt of the enquiry letter made by his counsel with Op.No-1, he delivered to the first RPAD and also the second RPAD letter No. 2084 simultaneous on the same date i.e, 11-10-06. In view of the negligence act of the Ops in not delivering the registered letter within the stipulated period and thereby keeping the same for un-usual larger period has defeated the very object of the said notice which in-turn put the complainant in situation which is affecting his rights over the land in question. The vendor has now not come forward to execute the sale deed since the notice in-question expressing the readiness of the complainant to pay the balance sale consideration could not be conveyed to her because of the negligent act of the Ops. Such act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency of service. OP.No-3 is the in-charge of Raichur District Postal Department. Therefore Ops are liable to pay damages of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and also mental agony. 2. In response to service of notice Ops 1 to 4 appeared through District Government Pleader. Op.No-3 has filed written statement which is adopted by other Ops. The Ops did not know anything about the agreement made by the complainant with Smt. Padmavathi. The nature of the agreement made and the balance of amount to be paid to the complainant by the vendor is also not known to the Ops. The cover has been sent to Smt. Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp by RPAD vide receipt No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 of Sath Kacheri Post Office Raichur. But the nature of the contents or documents in the cover is not known to the Ops. In response to the letter of the complaint dt. 06-10-06 received from his counsel the matter was enquired into. The registered letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 Sathkacheri Post Office Raichur was delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06 by the Ramathnal Branch Post Office and the date of delivery of the letter has been communicated to the counsel of the complainant on 14-10-06. The said registered letter No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 was not retained by the OP.No-2 as alleged, but it was sent to Ramthnal Branch Post Office by Op.No-2 on 18-09-06 on the date of receipt for delivery to the addressee and that since the addressee Smt. Padmavathi was found not residing within the delivery jurisdiction of Ramthnal Branch Post Office it was held in deposit at Ramathnal Post Office for enquiry as a part of Jeenur Camp is covered by the Byagwat and Hirekotnekal Branch Post Offices in Manvi Tq. On enquiries with the members of the public it was learnt that the addressee Smt. Padmavathi is actually residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which does not fall under the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office and that by that time another registered letter was received in the name of the said addressee and both registered letters were delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06. The registered letter was held in deposit at Rahamnthal Branch Office beyond the stipulated period of (7) days with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to Sender with remarks No such addressee in Jeenur Camp. There is no willful delay on the part of the Ops but delay is due to in-correct address written on the cover by the sender. The registered letter could not be delivered within stipulated period for the reasons stated above. Hence there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the Ops. The delay in delivery of the registered letter is due to in-correct address written on the cover and the Ops are in no way responsible for non-execution of sale deed by the vendor. Hence the claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is not maintainable. Further as per section 6 of the Post Office Act the Central Government is exempted from any liability by reasons of loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damage to any postal article during the course of transmission by Post. Hence for all these reasons the Ops have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (6) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-6. In rebuttal the Ops have filed sworn-affidavit of Op.No-4 by way of examination-in-chief which is adopted by other Ops. But they have not adduced any documentary evidence. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. The D.G.P. for Ops has filed written arguments by way of reply. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Ops for belated delivery of the registered letter dt. 15-09-06 on 11-10-06, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had sent a registered letter/cover No. 1769 on 15-09-06 addressed to Smt. V.Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi which was received by Ramathnal Branch Office on 18-09-06 for delivery. According to the complainant, through this registered cover he had sent legal notice to addressee-vendor intimating his readiness to pay balance sale consideration for execution of registered sale deed as per agreement of sale. The complainant has filed Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dt. 01-08-06 between him and Smt. Padma @ Padmavathi R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi at Ex.P-1. He has produced Office copy of legal notice dt. 15-09-06 issued by RPAD at Ex.P-2(1). Xerox copy of registered postal receipt bearing No. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 at Ex.P-2(2) and Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement dt. 11-10-06 at Ex.P-2(3). He has produced office copy of legal notice dt. 06-10-06 addressed to Smt. V. Padmavathi at Ex.P-3(1). Xerox copy of postal receipt bearing No. 2084 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-3(2) and Xerox copy of postal acknowledgement dt. 11-10-06 at Ex.P-3(3). He has produced office copy of legal notice dt. 06-10-06 issued to Post Master, Raichur at Ex.P-4. The original postal receipt bearing No. 2085 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-4(1) and reply letter dt. 11-10-06 of Post Master Raichur/Customer Care Center at Ex.P-5 and Another reply letter of Raichur Customer Care Center Post Office dt. 14-10-06 at Ex.P-6. 7. The O.P. in their written version at Para-5 have clearly stated that the registered letter was held in deposit with Ramathnal Branch Post Office beyond stipulated period of (7) days with good-intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning with the remarks that no such addressee in Jeenur Camp so there is no willful delay on part of the Respondents but the delay is due to in-correct address written on the cover by the sender/complainant. The postal acknowledgement of the registered letter bearing NO. 1769 dt. 15-09-06 produced at Ex.P-2(3) shows the address of the addressee as Smt. Padma @ Padmavathi W/o. Surya Prakash R/o. Jeenur Camp Tq. Manvi. This postal acknowledgement shows the delivery date seal of the Ramathnal Post Office as 11-10-06. It also shows the signature of the addressee V.Padma in- token of receipt of registered cover on 11-10-06. It is not the case of the OP that the registered cover dt. 15-09-06 was delivered to the addressee Padma by other Branch Post Office, than Ramathnal Branch Post Office in-order to substantiate their contention in Para-5 that the addressee Padmavathi was found not residing within the delivery jurisdiction on Ramathnal Branch Post Office and they held up the registered cover for enquiry since a part of Jeenur Camp is delivered by the Byagwat & Hirekotnekal Branch Post Offices in Manvi Tq. It is also not the case of the Ops that the addressee V.Padma was out of station at the time of delivery of the said registered cover. If this is so there was no reason to keep the registered cover with Ramathnal Branch Post Office especially when according to them V.Padmavathi was not at all residing within the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office. Further, when according to the Ops a part of Jeenur Camp covered by Byagwat & Hirekotnekal Branch Post Office and that they came to know that the addressee V.Padma is actually residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which does not fall the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office. When this is so it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that they retained the registered cover with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to sender with remarks no such address in Jeenur Camp. Of course a duty caste upon the delivery Post Office to retain the registered cover for a period of (7) days in-order to deliver to the addressee who will be out of station. But when the Ops have specifically stated that the addressee V.Padmavathi was not residing in Jeenur Camp and that she was residing in a farm house far away from Jeenur Camp which is beyond delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office, then the contention that they retained the registered cover with good intention to deliver to the addressee does hold any water. 8. In this case surprisingly enough, the first registered cover dt. 15-09-06 at Ex.P-1 which is received by the Ramathnal Branch Post Office on 18-09-06, has been delivered to the addressee on 11-10-06 simultaneously with the second registered cover sent by the complainant to the same addressee on same address bearing No. 2084 dt. 07-10-06 at Ex.P-3 as admitted by them and as reveled from Ex.P-3(3) Postal Acknowledgement. So it shows that the Ramathnal Branch Post Office without making any efforts slept over the matter of delivering to the addressee and after receipt of the second cover they woke-up and delivered both the registered covers to the addressee. Even the Ops have not produced any Register/Book showing reason for non-delivery of the registered cover/article within the stipulated period of (7) days or even beyond stipulated period on (7) days when according to them they retained the registered cover in-question with good intention to deliver to the addressee instead of returning to the sender with remarks as no such addressee in Jeenur Camp. Because a strict duty caste on the delivering officer of the Post Office to deliver the postal articles to the addressee within the stipulated period of (7) days or else to return to the sender with remarks what they found in their attempt for delivery of the article. In the absence of any co-gent and convincing material it cannot be said that the Ramathnal Branch Post Office retained the registered cover with good intention for its delivery even beyond stipulated period of (7) days instead of returning to its sender. 9. If according to Ops, the address of the addressee on the cover was either in-correct or the addressee was not at all residing in the delivery jurisdiction of Ramathnal Branch Post Office, then what prevented then from returning the same to the sender with appropriate remarks. Of course the postal authorities are not knowing or expected to know what contains in the Registered/ article cover and whether it is important or not. The only duty caste upon them to deliver the registered article promptly to the addressee within the stipulated period and if not for any reasons, then they have to return to the sender with appropriate remarks. Without doing so the Ops have un-successfully taken the shelter of defence that they retained the cover with intention to deliver to the addressee without returning to its sender with appropriate remarks. Hence the exemption clause of section 6 of Post Office Act will not come to their rescue for simple reason that the exemption clause is applicable for the loss, mis-delivery, or delay or damage to any Postal article during the course of transmission. But here the postal registered cover dt. 15-09-06 has been received on 18-09-06 and it was retained by the Rahamthnal Branch Post Office beyond (7) days with the alleged good intention of delivering to the addressee without returning to the sender with appropriate remarks. So if all these factors are taken into account it amply shows deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in delivering the registered cover in time. Therefore viewed from any angle we find clear deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Therefore Point NO-1, is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with cost of litigation. In-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 1,500/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Ops shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Ops shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-11-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.