The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Postal Department to ensure proper delivery of mail and take necessary actions to rectify any mistakes or deficiencies in service.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This appeal has been filed by the Postal Department against the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the District Forum, Pauri whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 10%.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Mahanand, complainant No. 2, son of Atma Ram, complainant No. 1 was residing in Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar. The complainant No. 1 sent to complainant No. 2 by registered post all his certificates of educational qualification, as original mark sheet, High School certificate, Inter certificate, B.A. mark sheet, domicile certificate, employment exchange registration certificate. The said envelope has not been delivered to the complainant No. 2 till date. There was correspondence but neither the envelope was returned to the complainant No. 1, nor it was delivered to the complainant No. 2. The complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for physical and mental pain, Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the duplicate of the originals.

3. The appellant filed written statement and also the affidavit of the postman and alleged that the envelope was tried to be delivered to the complainant No. 2 but he was not available in his room, therefore, it was delivered to his companion residing in his room namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar. It is alleged that there is no deficiency in service of the Postal Department.

4. The learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them found that there was no authority with the Postal Department to deliver the envelope to Rakesh Kumar and in the absence of any such authority, the delivery to wrong person is definitely deficiency in service. The learned Forum, therefore, allowed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- as above. Against which order the present appeal has been filed.

5. The complainant No. 2, Mahanand had appeared on 13.10.2004, thereafter, he did not appear, therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The plea of the appellant appears to be totally false or baseless that the envelope was handed over to some Rakesh Kumar. The complainant No. 2 has specifically alleged here in the reply of the appeal that he never knew the Postman Vishnu Sharma or Rakesh Kumar. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to have filed the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar. The appellant should have filed the evidence to prove that actually Rakesh Kumar was the room-mate of the complainant No. 2. He was getting education with him. He could have procured certificates from the postman and definite evidence could have been given that Rakesh Kumar was a classmate of the complainant No. 2, then some presumption could have been raised that people authorize every room-mate to take delivery but in the absence of any such evidence it cannot be believed that there was any authority of the complainant No. 2, Mahanand to Rakesh Kumar to receive any such envelope. Not only this the complainant No. 2 has written a letter to the Supdt. of Post Office on 2.6.1997 after about 6 months of the dispatch of the envelope that he has not received the registered envelope sent by his father. It should be immediately given to him. He has given his present address of Delhi in the said letter. This envelope does not appear to have been replied by the Postal Department. The copy of some inquiry dated 8.9.1998 has been filed. This is all internal matter of the post office to save their own skin.

6. The deficiency in service of the appellant on the face of record. The appellant could not prove that the complainant No. 2 has authorized any Rakesh Kumar to receive his registered envelope. It also could not produce any affidavit of Rakesh Kumar. It also could not produce any evidence that Rakesh Kumar has actually received that envelope. Even if it was so, it was obligatory duty on the part of