Heard Miss Sulochana Patro,  learned Central Govt. counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.     The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had obtained two numbers of MIS account for Rs.18,000/- and Rs.12,000/- on 20.7.1998 with the  date of maturity on 20.7.2006 at OP No.1’s Head Post Office. Also the complainant No.2 wife of complainant No.1 has purchased one KVP for Rs.10,000/- with the date of maturity on 20.1.2004. It is alleged inter alia that on 8.8.2003,  they submitted applications for transfer the aforesaid MIS accounts and the KVP from the said Head Post Office to OP No.2 Sub-Post Office. It is alleged that these accounts were neither transferred nor the complainants got the maturity amount. So alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version but did not participate in the hearing. It is the case of the OPs that due to non mention of the name of the Head Post Office, they transferred the accounts to the Sub-Post Office of late and finally made payment on 25.3.2005. They averred that this delay in payment is attributed due to wrong mention of the name of the Head Post Office of the transferee Sub-Post Office. Therefore, they have no any deficiency in service on their part.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing the complainant passed the following order:-

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

In the above premises the complainants herein are entitled to receive compensation and cost. In the result we partly allow the complaint petition and direct the OPs to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only towards compensation for the mental agonies, harassment and humiliations faced by them and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) towards cost of the present litigation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

6.      Learned Central Govt. counsel submitted that the learned District Forum has not considered the facts properly because  maturity amount has already been paid to the complainants and delay occurred due to non-mention of  name of correct post office. Therefore, she submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the   appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It is quite clear from the materials on record that the appellants neither transferred the MIS accounts nor the KVP on time to the Sub-Post Office. The question of wrong mention of address was not proved by the OPs because no such document is filed to that effect. However, since there is already payment made on 25.3.2005, we take a lenient view but for delay in payment while confirming the impugned order about deficiency in service on the part of OP modify the operative portion of the impugned order by directing the appellants to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from today.

9.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.