- (1.) THERE is no merit in this appeal. The fact remains that the money order sent by the complainant from Dindigul and addressed to his son -in -law who was then working in the State of Assam was not at all delivered to him. The money order according to the appellant/opposite party was returned because the addressee was not available. The money order was booked on 7.10.1998. It is stated that it was returned in January, 1999. The returned money order is also not produced. On the other hand, the correspondence dated 28.1.1999 would show that the inquiries made by the postal officials revealed that the money order was not received and paid at the office of payment. Thus, there is a clear deficiency in service. The usual contention that Section 6 and Section 48 of the Indian Post Offices Act is raised. These two sections cannot apply because Section 6 refers to article while Section 48 cannot apply. This is not a case where there was anything wrong with the address given in the money order. The opposite parties have not been able to say what exactly happened to the money order and why it was not delivered. There is no plausible or reasonable excuse. Therefore, the lower Forum was justified in holding that there was deficiency in service. For our part, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. However, we find that the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - is somewhat high. Taking into consideration the circumstances, we would reduce the compensation to Rs. 1,000/ -. Accordingly, while confirming the order passed by the lower Forum, however, we modify the same to hold that the complainant will be entitled to sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation along with a cost of Rs. 100/ -.
(2.) IN the result, this appeal is allowed in part; the order passed by the lower Forum is modified. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation along with a cost of Rs. 100/ - in all. Time for payment: Two months.;