G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. Through the medium of this appeal order dated 06-08-2007 passed by the learned Divisional Forum Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred as Forum) has been challenged. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who is an employee of the Central Government and presently has his posting in the city of Srinagar on 27-11-2006 at (sic) P.M., sent one bank draft in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to his son on his residential address of city of Jullandar (in Punjab) and his son was in dire financial necessity, but when the delivery had not been made within reasonable expected time of 48 hours, his patience exhausted and on 08-12-2006 he filed the complaint in the Forum. During the pendency of the proceeding, the draft in question was delivered to his son on 12-12-2006. 2. The defence taken by the appellant before the Forum was that a speed post article is normally delivered within 48 hours from its receipt, but due to abnormal exceptional circumstances as happened in this case, the unintentional delay was caused which was excusable. The other defence taken to defeat the claim was that the appellant at the most was entitled to the refund of postal charges according to the relevant speed post rules framed by the Postal Department. During the trial those rules were not produced before the Forum. 3. The respondent had claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental and financial loss, but the learned Forum had granted him compensation in the sum of Rs. 5000/- which was made payable within four weeks failing which interest had to accure @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till their realization. The litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 1000/- were also awarded. 4. In the memo of appeal, the order has been assailed that there was a delay of only one week and the question for consideration before the learned Forum was whether the speed post article was lost or delivered. Since it was delivered, so the appellant was legally bound to return the postage charges to the respondent. It is also pleaded that there was a delay of only 3 or 4 days. 5. The appeal was filed by G. Murtaza, advocate of the appellant personally on 03-09-2007 but thereafter he stopped appearing personally and was being represented in proxy by Mr. It is also pleaded that there was a delay of only 3 or 4 days. 5. The appeal was filed by G. Murtaza, advocate of the appellant personally on 03-09-2007 but thereafter he stopped appearing personally and was being represented in proxy by Mr. Sajjad Malik, advocate on every subsequent date of hearing as for instance on 3-10-07, 13-11-07, 28-11-07, 26-02-08 and 15-04-08. The respondent used to be present on every such date of hearing. In the similar way on 06-06-2008, the respondent was present, but nobody was present on behalf of the appellant. Finally, on 23-06-2008 the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and consigned it to the records. Mr. G. Murtaza, advocate became active and filed application for the readmission of the appeal on the grounds that he had fallen sick and could not appear on the dates of hearing. Because of his personal reasons, he was given chance to appear and contest the appeal and vide order dated 05-05-2009, the appeal was readmitted. On the next date i.e., on 06-05-2009, Mr. G. Murtaza, advocate appeared for the appellant and the record of the Forum which has been returned was called. 6. Mr. G. Murtaza, advocate for the appellant is again absent today and on behalf of the appellant Mr. Ajay Bhat who is an employee is praying for an adjournment on the plea that today is a call for hartal and advocate is not present for that reason. The request is turned down because despite such frequent calls of hartals given by some vested interests, the functioning of the statutory institutions cannot be stalled. Mr. Ajay Bhat has himself appeared and respondent is also personally present. The Commission is also functioning. So under such circumstances, the absence of the advocate is not justified. Mr. Ajay Bhat was given sufficient time to contact Mr. G. Murtaza for causing appearance till afternoon, but the advocate has not appeared. The case pertains to a dispute of admitted nature and the appeal proceedings depict that the respondent is suffering for their protracted nature and this amounts to his persecution. The object of the Act is getting frustrated as speedy and summary justice is being denied to him. 7. We have carefully gone through the contents of the impugned order as well the memo of appeal and find no substance in the appeal. The object of the Act is getting frustrated as speedy and summary justice is being denied to him. 7. We have carefully gone through the contents of the impugned order as well the memo of appeal and find no substance in the appeal. Even the facts have been distorted in the memo of appeal when against admitted delay of 13 days it is pleaded that there was a delay of 3 or 4 days. The son of the respondent received the draft in question on 12-12-2006, when already the respondent had filed the complaint in the Forum on 08-12-2006. The plea taken that the respondent is entitled to only refund of the postage charges has no legal significance because the case falls within the definition of a `Consumer' under the J&K Consumer Protection Act and it is a proved case of `deficiency in service'. The impugned order does not suffer either from factual error or legal infirmity. Rather, a meritless appeal has been filed to prevent the bona fide consumer to reap the fruits of litigation in time. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 3000/-. The appellant is directed to make the payment of the awarded amount by the Forum including the litigation charges as well as the litigation charges of the appeal within a period of one month failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid on the whole payable amount. The appeal be consigned to records and the record of the Forum be returned at once.