Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President—Non-delivery of an article sent by speed post is grievance of complainant alleging deficiency in service of opposite parties who are officers of Central Government rendering postal service to consumers.

2. Complainant sent an article by speed post on 16.6.1991 to Manager, Spare Parts, B.S. Ramakrishna, Mahindra Nisan Always Limited, Secunderabad-8 in respect of which he paid speed post charges of Rs. 30/-. Since the article was not delivered to the addressee, complainant submitted a written grievance to opposite party No. 3 where he stated that the article contained a bank draft of Rs. 10,000/-.On the next day i.e., 2.7.1991, a service telegram was sent by opposite party No. 3 to Speed Post in charge, Secunderabad to confirm the date of delivery of the article and reason for the delay in delivery. As no reply was received, another service telegram was issued on 4.7.1991 by opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 3 received the reply dated 5.7.1991 that the article was lost while in the custody of the postman. After receipt of the same the fact appears to have been reported to opposite party No. 2 who issued an office order for refund of Rs. 20/- as the article was lost while in custody of the postman and could not be delivered within the normal transit period. Copy of the same was sent to opposite party No. 3 for immediate drawl copy was also sent to complainant.

3. Long thereafter on 25.2.1992 complaint has been filed alleging that the bank draft was sent as advance on basis of a telephonic talk with the addressee for delivery of spare parts which were required for the mini truck of Always Nisan brand of complainant. Since speed post is to be delivered within 24 hours, complainant started for Hyderabad in an empty mini truck with a driver and a mechanic in order to get delivery of the spare parts. Reaching Secunderabad complainant learnt from the company that bank draft had not reached for which complainant had to return back with the empty mini truck without getting delivery of the spare parts. In this process, complainant incurred Rs. 7,500/-. As the complainant also suffered physical inconvenience and mental agony, he has filed the complaint for compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-.

4. In reply, opposite parties stated in short that the contents of the speed post article and purpose of sending the article are not known to them. Opposite parties also have no knowledge of the expenditure incurred by complainant. On enquiry, loss of the article having been found, refund of speed post charges has been sanctioned. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation in view of Section 6 of the Post Offices Act and nothing else can be done except taking departmental action against the post peon.

5. Complainant has produced copy of the bank draft obtained on 14.6.1991, copy of letter dated 1.7.1991 to opposite party No. 3. Copy of the sanction order in support of the case. Opposite parties produced copy of letter dated 1.7.1991 from complainant to opposite party No. 3, copy of communication dated 1.7.1991 from opposite party No. 3 to Secunderabad Post Office, Reminder Communication dated 2.7.91 and 4.7.91. Reply Communication from Secunderabad dated 5.7.1991 circular relating to speed post service to all senior post masters of Bhubaneswar Division and a printed speed post Brochure for Orissa.

6. On the aforesaid materials it is to be determined; (i) Whether complainant is a consumer? (ii) Whether opposite parties rendered any service to complainant? (iii) Whether there is deficiency in service? (iv) Whether such deficiency is on account of negligence of opposite parties? (v) What is the suffering of complainant? and (vi) What direction is to be given?

7. Point Nos. (i) and (ii) — Complaint relates to non-delivery of speed post article. When an article is received from a person by another to be delivered on his behalf at another place, the person receiving the article for delivery renders a service to th