HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1.       The rival contentions have been succinctly articulated by the District Forum in its Order dated 15.11.2017:

The fact of the case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1000/- through EMO to Himangshu Chakraborty, who is a very close known person to the complainant at Village & P.O. Gobindapur, Rthtala, Via Shyampur, District Howrah from Chinsurah Head Post office vide EMO no.139694140307026568 on 7.3.2014. The complainant further states that after two weeks from the date of remitting the M.O. the said money did not reach the addressee. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 28.3.2014 to the Superintendent of Posts, North Hooghly Division, regarding nonpayment of EMI, but the concerned office turned a deaf ear to the complaint of the petitioner. Lastly, the complainant came to know that the said M.O. was delivered on 5^th May, 2014. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant with a prayer as laid down in the prayer portion of the complaint.

Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.2 is that one EMO for Rs.1000/- was booked at Chinsurah H.O. on 7.3.2014 vide no.139694140307026568 for payment to Himanshu Chakraborty, Gobindapur B.O. under Shyampur S.O. Howrah 711314. Dr. Panda lodged a written complaint earlie3r to the Supdt. Of Post North Hooghly Division, Chinsurah on 28.3.2014 and in this connection a web complaint had been lodged under Regd. no.712000-055559 on 20.5.2014. Immediate3ly a letter of acknowledgeme3nt with reference to complaint no.712000-05559 was issued vide SPOS North Hooghly Division letter no.712000-05559 dated 20.5.2014 that the said E MO had been paid on 5.5.2014. Immediately after receiving the information S.P. of Pos’ North Hooghly Division he furnished a settled reply on 20.5.2014 to Dr. Panda. The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint as it is harassive in nature, lacks merit.

            (extract from the District Forum’s Order)

(emphasis supplied)

2.       The case, simply put, is that a money order of Rs. 1000/- was remitted by the complainant on 07.03.2014 from Chinsurah Head Post Office, District Hooghly to Village & Post Office Gobindapur, Rathtala, via Shyampur, District Howrah. It was received on 05.05.2014, that is, after 2 months. This fact is admitted by both sides. And as observed by the District Forum “It is admitted fact as it  appears from the record that complainant sent money order to one relative in view of his word given to that relative to pay some money in latter marriage ceremony.”  

The short point therefore in this case is whether the Post Office is liable for deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986.

3.       The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 15.11.2017, allowed the complaint:

DECISION WITH REASONS:

All the points are taken together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

It is admitted fact as it  appears from the record that complainant sent money order to one relative in view of his word given to that relative to pay some money in latter marriage ceremony. Accordingly, complainant sent Money order of Rs.1000/- to his relative through on 7.3.2014 from Chinsurah Post office vide E.M.O. no. 139694140307026568, counter 2 (enclosure 1). Later on the complainant was addressed by Himangshu Chakraborty in the last week of April, 2014 informing the complainant not receiving the money order and the said person had written to this complainant some abusive language telling the complainant a cheater and told that complainant did not send any money. Xerox copy of that letter has been enclosed as enclosure 3 dated 15.4.2014 from Himangshu Chakraborty to this complainant. In para 8 complainant stated that he came to know that the M.O. was delivered on 5.5.2014, enclosure filed. Complainant also took information from the Post office but failed to get any redressal from Superintendent of Post office. The complainant is an old person of 68 years. He has been assaulted by using those words communicated by letter. So the complainant being aggrieved by the letter filed this case for deficiency in service against the oP. The other papers also shows enclosure 4 that the complainant is a cardiac patient. Op in this case also filed Evidence in chief and no documents have been filed by the oP. OP admitted the fact and the money order was delivered on 5.5.2014. It is also stated by the Op that Service of the Post office does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act (Indian Post office Act 1898, clause 220 and 248). The Op no. 2 Superintendent of Post office, Hooghly has also filed an application striking out OP’s name which has been allowed. So from the above circumstances it is established in record that money order was delivered after long period and on 5.5.2014. In the Text Book in the clause of deficiency in service it is stated non delivery of money order at the correct address per se amounts to deficiency in rendering services and delay in delivering Money also amounts to deficiency in service in view of the provision of Section 14(1) of C.P.Act, 1986. We are quoting one citation from the Book written by S.P. Sengupta, Commentaries of the Consumer Protection Act at page 327 wherein it has been quoted -

“Telegram Master (0), Belgaum v E.F. D’Silva 1991 CPJ 394 (Kant) (in this case telegram was delivered after 17 days and the complainant was awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation. See also Surinder Singh v Post Master General 1991 CPJ 521 (Goa) in this case one telegraphic money order sent as a gift for the complainant’s brother’s daughter reached the payee after a month and another telegraphic money order sent by the complainant’s son did not reach the complainant within 6 days. The Postal Dept. was held negligent. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded as compensation for he ‘loss of reputation as well as mental and physical agony’)”.

The Op submitted one Ruling of Hon’ble National Commission, Revision petition of 3591 of 2009 in accordance with the Post office Act 1898 and submitted that in this case Post office is not liable for any act for commission or omission ………………..  Post office cannot be equated with common carrier. So the fact of that case and the case in our hand is different. Accordingly, principle of law is inapplicable in this case.

So, from the fact it is established that the Money order was delivered after a lapse of about two months to the addressee and the Post office is liable for this act of Negligency. The Post office authority has no control over the Post Master and subordinate employee of the Post office. Their act is devoid of due care and attention. Accordingly it is ordered that the material on record prove the case and the case succeeds. The complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Hence it is –

Ordered

That the CC no. 111 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.2 is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for his unnecessary mental agony , harassment and pain. The Op  no.2 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant for litigation cost. The Op no.2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs. 200/- per day will be imposed upon the OP no.2 and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund, after the statutory period of 30 days.

(extract of the District Forum’s Order)

(emphasis supplied)

4.       The Post Office appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard the Post Office, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 19.11.2018, concurred with the findings of deficiency in service, and partially modified the award by setting aside the penalty (Rs. 200/- per day) imposed on the Post Office:  

After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the Opposite Parties, as indicated above.  To challenge the said order, the Opposite Party No.2 has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

We have heard Mr. Bikramjit Bhattacharjee, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  None appears for the Respondent when the record was taken up for hearing.  We have scrutinised the materials on record including the brief notes of arguments filed on behalf of appellant.

Undisputedly, on 07.03.2014 the Respondent sent one EMO of Rs.1,000/- to one Sri Himangshu Chakraborty on account of marriage ceremony of the daughter of payee in his permanent address at Village + P.O.- Gobindapur, Rathtala, via-Shyampur, Dist- Howrah, Pin- 711314 from Chinsurah Head Post Office vide EMO No.139694140307026568.  However, the said EMO could not reach the destination within time.  The respondent has made a written complaint to the appellant on 28.03.2014 for non-receipt of the said EMO by the addressee.  In the meanwhile, in the 1^st week of April, 2014 the addressee complaint that he had personally gone to Gobindapur Post Office 5/6 times but he was told that no EMO had been sent to him by anybody.  Accordingly, Hinmangshu blamed the respondent and had made several remarks in the said letter causing severe mental pain to the respondent who have been suffering from hypertension and ischemic heart disease for the last 10 years.  Ultimately, the said EMO was delivered on 05.05.2014. 

On scrutiny of written version, it would reveal that the Appellant did not explain the reasons for which there has been a delay for about two months in reaching one EMO from one destination to another in a short distance of about 50 kilometers.  In the written version, it has been stated that the services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory and there is no contractual liability establishing the Post Office and running the postal services and the Central Government performs a government function and the government does not engage in commercial transaction and as such the question of deficiency in services does not arise.

- - - - - -

Placing reliance to a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2017) CPJ 115 [Anita Rani – Vs. – Department of Post & Anr.] the Ld. Advocate for the appellant has contended that the Ld. District Forum has failed to consider that there was neither any fraud or wilful act or default or negligence from the side of the appellant towards the respondent rather the appellant’s office was continuously in touch with the respondent and also entertained him diligently because when the respondent lodged a written complaint to the appellant, the office of the appellant sent him written replies and never ignored him. He has further contended that the respondent has never stated that the appellant has ever committed any fraudulent activity on him.

At the outset, for proper appreciation of the dispute, it would worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act which provides –

“The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, mis-delivery or delay or delay of, or damage to, any Postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default”.

- - - - - -

However, almost a similar case was considered by a Five Member Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001 (3) CPR 189 [Post Master, Ranipet H.O. & Anr. – Vs. – Shri N.B. Janaki Raman].  In that case, a money order sent by the complainant was delivered to the payee after three months.  In a complaint filed by him, the Postal Department took the plea that the complaint was barred under Section 48(c) of the Indian Post Office Act, which provides that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government or its officers, inter-alia, for delay in payment of any money order, other than the fraud or wilful act or default of such officer. The State Commission, however, rejected the contention and directed payment of compensation to the complainant.  Being aggrieved, postal department preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission.  Dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed –

“A bare perusal of Section 48(c) would show that it does not give blank immunity to the appellants.  If there is a fraud or wilful act or default on the part of any officer of the post office, appellants will certainly be liable. It may be that fraud or wilful act has to be proved by the complainant and so also the default.  But when the default is so extensive like in the present case, no proof of evidence on the part of the complainant is required to be proved the default on the part of the post office. As to what is the wilful or default, we need not go to any treatise on the interpretation of this terms or to any judgement for the purpose.  We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular provision.  As a matter of fact default of two months in sending the telegraphic money order could also be a wilful act.  No circumstances has been brought on record by the appellant to show that there has not been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers.  For this gross act of default in not sending the telegraphic money order in time after receiving charges of the same respondent has certainly suffered a great deal of anguish and mental harassment”.

In the instant case, it is quite evident that the Postal Department has received Rs.50/- for transmission of EMO of Rs.1,000/- from respondent in order to reach its destination within shortest possible time. But the appellant took two months time to send it in its destination. It certainly causes unnecessary delay causing tremendous mental agony and anguish of the respondent. Section 6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 being pari materia with Section 48(c) of the said Act, particularly when the appellant has failed to brought on record that there has no been any wilful act or default on the part of any of its officers, we have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in holding that the post office was liable for this act of negligence and rightly imposed compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

However, the Ld. District Forum had no occasion to impose penalty of Rs.200/- per day which was beyond averment in the petition of complaint or in the prayer clause of the petition of complaint.  It is well settled that fair procedure is the hallmark of natural justice and an affected party has every right to answer the allegation levelled against them.  Since the order of penalty of Rs.200/- per day was beyond the pleading, that part of order is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the directions upon the appellant/OPs to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost aggregating of Rs.5,000/- in favour of respondent/complainant within 60 days from date, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date till its realisation. 

With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

            (extract from the State Commission’s Order)

(emphasis supplied)

5.       The complainant has not agitated before this Commission, though the penalty of Rs. 200/- per day was set aside by the State Commission without hearing the complainant.

The Post Office has come before this Commission in revision under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the Order dated 19.11.2018 of the State Commission.

6.       We heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner – Post Office, and perused the material on record. 

7.       We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission has concurred with the District Forum. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisals / observations made by the two fora, quoted, verbatim, in paras 3 and 4 above. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

8.       On 07.02.2019, after hearing arguments on admission, we passed the following Order:

Dated: 07-02-2019

ORDER

The District Forum vide its Order dated 15.11.2017 had allowed the complaint.

The State Commission vide its Order dated 19.11.2018 had agreed with the findings of the District Forum but partially modified its award.

This revision has been filed against the said Order dated 19.11.2018 of the State Commission.

It is not disputed that the money order in question was sent on 07.03.2014 and was received on 05.05.2014 i.e. after about two months. 

In the facts and specificities of the case we are of the considered opinion that an officer one step senior to the superintendent of post office – revisionist shall file a report based on the official record in the whole matter, within four weeks, through counsel.

It is also directed that the entire decretal amount (with clear and cogent calculation sheet) shall be deposited with the District Forum within two weeks.

However, learned counsel for the revisionist prays for four weeks to file the said report and to make the said deposit. His request is accepted. 

It is made explicit that no notice is being issued and that there is no stay on the operation of the impugned Order.

List the case on 11-03-2019 for hearing on admission. 

‘Dasti’ in addition.

(emphasis supplied)

9.       An affidavit dated 08.03.2019 was filed in compliance of this Commission’s above-quoted Order dated 07.02.2019 by the Postmaster General, wherein he affirmed as below:

AFFIDAVIT

1.         That the deponent states that he is posted as Postmaster General, South Bengal Region under West Bengal Circle at Kolkata – 700012 and gone through the official record related to the abovementioned case as maintained by the department. I have made myself conversant with the facts of the case hence competent to depose the present affidavit on behalf of the petitioner and as directed by Hon’ble NCDRC.

2.         That the deponent states that an EMO no. 139694140307026568 for Rs. 1000/- was booked at Chinsurah Head Post Office on 07.03.2014 and transmitted electronically successfully from Chinsurah Head Post Office on 08.03.2014. But due to some technical problem the said eMO has not landed / reached at paying Post Office in due time but received on 03.05.2014 at Shyampur S.O. under Howrah Division and paid to the actual payee on 05.05.2014 from Gobindpur B.O. in account with Shyampur S.O. Thus the delayed payment of the eMO was not intentional or out of any ill-will.    

3.         That the deponent states that the present Affidavit is filed in compliance of the Order Dated 07.02.2019 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi where the Hon’ble Commission was pleased to direct that an officer one step senior to the Revisionist shall file a report based on the official record in the whole matter after appreciating the contents of Annexure P-3 Dt. 23.09.2015 annexed in the Revision Petition No. RP/264/2019.

In view of the above facts and submissions, it is evident that the Order Dated 15.11.2017 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoogly in CC/111/2015 and Order Dated 19.11.2018 passed by Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in A/1325/2017 are not justified and the same requires interference of this Hon’ble Commission as such present Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.  

(para 1, 2 and 3 of the affidavit of Postmaster General)

(emphasis supplied)

10.     On 25.04.2019, after hearing arguments of the Post Office, and after perusing the material on record, we passed the following Order:

Dated:  25.04.2019

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (Superintendent of Post Office). 

Perused the material on record including, inter alia, specifically, the affidavit dated 08.03.2019 of the Post Master General.

The revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant by the revision petitioner, and, in addition, a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum by the revision petitioner, within four weeks of the pronouncement of the reasoned judgement.

Reasoned judgement to follow.

Execution proceedings shall remain stayed till four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgement.

We are giving our reasons hereinafter.

11.     We would first like to refer to the following:

Statement of Objects And Reasons for the Indian Post Office Act, 1898:

The present Bill proposes to confer the protection and powers which have been found necessary in the extension and increase of postal business. It includes within its scope postal insurance, the value payable post, and the Post Office money order system, and declares and limits the liability of Government in respect of these matters. 

section 6 of the Act 1898:

Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage. - The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.

section 48 of the Act 1898:  

Exemption from liability in respect of money orders. -  No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against the government or any officer of the Post Office in respect of –

(a) anything done under any rules made by the Central Government under this Chapter; or

(b) the wrong payment of a money order caused by incorrect or incomplete information given by the remitter as to the name and address of the payee, provided that, as regards incomplete information, there was reasonable justification for accepting the information as a sufficient description for the purpose of identifying the payee; or

(c)  the payment of any money order being refused or delayed by, or on account of, any accidental neglect, omission or mistake, by, or on the part of, an officer of the Post Office, or for any other cause whatsoever, other than the fraud or willful act or default of such officer; or

(d) any wrong payment of a money order after the expiration of one year from the date of the issue of the order; or

(e) any wrong payment or delay in payment of a money order  beyond the limits of India by an officer of any Post Office, not being one established by the Central Government.

(emphasis supplied)

12.     We would also want to refer to the following:

Statement of Objects And Reasons for the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.

To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.   

section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act 1986:

“consumer” means any person who,—

(ii)   hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly prom­ised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986:

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inade­quacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986:

“service” means service of any description which is made avail­able to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

(emphasis supplied)

13.     The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consum­ers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith, is a comprehensive enactment for speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for better protection of the interests of consumers.

14.     The money order was made by the complainant to honor his word to his relative to pay some money in the latter’s daughter’s marriage ceremony (fixed for a particular date). It was a small amount (Rs. 1000/-). In such situation, timely receipt of the money by the designated recipient was essential. Belated receipt after 2 months impacts the whole gamut. This perspective has to also be kept in view.

And, irrespective of the above perspective, the mere fact of a money order being received after 2 months clearly falls within the meaning of deficiency in service under section 2(1)(g) and section 2(1)(o) of the Act 1986.     

15.     The Post Office took recourse to seeking protection of section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898. The State Commission has aptly dealt with it in its reasoned Order dated 19.11.2018 wherein it has also referred to this Commission’s observations in this regard. (The same have been quoted in para 4 above, and highlighted, and need not be quoted again.)

16.     Section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898 do not provide a blanket immunity. The onus to establish that the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) can be sought in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Post Office, which onus it has not discharged in this case. And this has to be seen in conjunction with deficiency in service under the Act 1986 that is writ large in the facts and circumstances of this case.   

The report on affidavit of the Postmaster General (quoted in para 9 above) admits the delay of 2 months (“EMO no. 139694140307026568 for Rs. 1000/- was booked at Chinsurah Head Post Office on 07.03.2014 and transmitted electronically successfully from Chinsurah Head Post Office on 08.03.2014. But due to some technical problem the said eMO has not landed / reached at paying Post Office in due time but received on 03.05.2014 at Shyampur S.O. under Howrah Division and paid to the actual payee on 05.05.2014 from Gobindpur B.O. in account with Shyampur S.O.”). It also says that “But due to some technical problem the said eMO has not landed / reached at paying Post Office in due time.” And it further says that “Thus the delayed payment of the eMO was not intentional or out of any ill-will.”

No elaboration of the purported “technical problem” has been made. A bland statement that the delay was “not intentional or out of any ill-will” has been made. There is no mention of any disciplinary or departmental action being taken on the errant officials or of any managerial steps for systemic improvements for future.

In the given facts, condoning such attitude, and mechanically applying the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898, and outrightly overlooking the deficiency in service under the Act 1986, will defeat the purpose of both, the relevant provisions of the Act 1898 and the relevant provisions of the Act 1986, quoted in paras 11 and 12 above, and also tantamount to this Commission granting a blanket license for inefficiency and deficiency without responsibility or accountability, which situation would be absurd, to say the least. 

17.     The dispute relates to 2015, we are in 2019. It is quite evident that the Post Office, after its deficiency in service, agitated, unsuccessfully, in one, two, and now three, consumer fora, needlessly wasting public time and monies. Even an opportunity to a senior officer to give a reasoned defence and inculcate responsibility and accountability was summarily disposed of with a bland report on affidavit. The arguments of learned counsel for the Post Office on 25.04.2019 centered only and only on the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898 and on the ground that if this Commission does not apply the protection sought under section 6 and section 48(c) it would give rise to a “large number” of claims. We have already critiqued that in the given and admitted facts of this case, to apply the protection provided under section 6 and section 48(c) would be absurd. In respect of “large number” of claims being made, the correct approach would be for the Post Office to inculcate systemic improvements and imbibe responsibility and accountability.  

18.     In the light of the discussion above, this is a fit case to impose reasonable and just cost.

19.     The revision petition, being patently misconceived and totally devoid of merit, is dismissed with advice to inculcate systemic improvements and imbibe responsibility and accountability and with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the complainant, and, in addition, cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, by the Post Office, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.

20.     Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.

21.     Execution proceedings shall remain stayed till four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. (This, self-evidently, is being provided to the Post Office for internal examination and introspection and for agitating its case further it so wishes.)

22.     A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the respondent – complainant and to the Postmaster General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata by the Registry within ten days from the date of pronouncement.