Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. 1. Order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Divisional Forum Jammu (hereinafter be referred to as a Forum) has been taken in appeal whereby and where-under the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, inclusive of the litigation charges to the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that respondent who is a practising advocate, filed a complaint on 05.03.2002 stating inter alia that he had an outstanding amount of Rs. 20,000/- by way of fee from his client namely, Shrimati Santoshi Bai W/O Late Raj Kumar R/O village and post office Sidhgaon, Tehsil Bheligarh Police station, Bheligarh, District Raipur (Chattisgarh). He had sent a registered cover from Darbargarh post office Jammu Tawi on the above stated address to his client, which was not delivered but received back with the endorsement that the address given was incomplete. The case of the complainant in brief was that the appellant had not genuinely made an attempt to deliver the above said registered letter at the given address but a false and fictitious report in Hindi language was made to the effect that "address was incomplete". Had there been any postal stamp of the concerned post office from Chattisgarh then the return of the registered cover would seem genuine, says the respondent-complainant. According to him, he could not recover an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from his client. He had to undergo mental agony, harassment and torture for which compensation was claimed in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Forum, after the trial of the complaint, granted the relief to the extent which has been stated above. 2. Aggrieved of this order the appellant has filed the appeal solely on the ground that the postal endorsement made on the registered cover is genuine and not fictitious. Legal plea was also raised for the protection granted against any legal action under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 read with relevant rule made there-under. 3. Heard the arguments. 4. Mr. Harshwardan, the learned counsel of the appellant has pleaded that the respondent's case is not genuine because he has made improvements in the evidence which was led before the Forum, because the name of one Ram Dular was introduced in the evidence by stating that he was a resident of the "same village and tehsil" where alleged registered cover was sent. He had paid the witness Rs. 20,000/- from his pocket by way of fare for going and coming back and to bring the said Shrimati Santoshi Bai to Jammu. Evidence of one Shivji Bhat was also led by the respondent to the fact that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was agreed and paid by the respondent to the contractor Ram Dular who at that time was putting up at Bantalab, Jammu. Evidence on affidavit of said Ram Dular was also led. In his affidavit, he has shown his residence of different village namely, Pelper Bhawan though claiming to be a resident of the same tehsil namely Beligarh District Raipur Chattisgarh. While concluding his arguments the learned counsel has stated that even on the made allegations the case is not proved because there are inherent contradictions between the deposition of the complainant and that of the contractor Ram Dular. The evidence is only of oral nature which can be easily concocted. In these circumstances according to Mr. Harshwardan advocate, the case of the appellant fell directly under provisions of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. There is no negligent act on the part of the appellant. There are two stamps on the Registered Postal cover which are not legible and one stamp can be from Chattisgarh post office. 5. While controverting the submissions of the learned counsel of the appellant, Mr. Vipin Gandotra Advocate, of the respondent has contended that appeal is filed by incompetent person namely, Senior Superintendent of Post Office Jammu whereas, the appellants are Union of India and Post Office Jammu. In support of his contentions he has cited the case of Ghulam Nabi Gojri v. State, 1998 SLJ 46 wherein it is held that "Letters Patent Appeal filed on behalf of State appeal signed by Dy. Labour Commissioner who was not a party to writ petition then such appeal was held not maintainable". Though strictly speaking the provisions of the CPC are not applicable in the Consumer Fora for the trial of the cases, yet principles of fair trial can be invoked of the CPC. Adverting to the alleged protection provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act Mr. Gandotra advocate, has contended that only exception is in respect of mis-delivery of the post but the present case is of non-delivery. Adverting to the alleged protection provided under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act Mr. Gandotra advocate, has contended that only exception is in respect of mis-delivery of the post but the present case is of non-delivery. His other argument is that the registered cover clearly has two stamps of Darbargarh Jammu which are legible. He further contends that stamp of Chattisgarh post office is missing from the registered cover which shows that it was not taken to the addressee for delivery. The affixation of postal stamp from the concerned post office of the addressees address was necessary as the registered envelop has gone for the delivery to the other state i.e. Chattisgarh. The name of the addressee's village, tehsil, District and Police Station were given. The address particulars are complete, how could then endorsement be made that there was incomplete address on the letter. No witness from concerned post office of Chattisgarh has been produced to prove that registered letter had been received there. 6. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the registered envelope, we find that the address particulars of the addressee namely, Santoshi Bai are complete and legible. The envelope was returned back simply by making an endorsement that the address is incomplete. The appellant has failed to prove before the Forum as to how the address was incomplete. To our wisdom, the address particulars are complete. Thus it appears that report made on the envelope is of casual and perfunctory nature, which amounts to the act of negligence on the part of the appellant and is construed as a deficiency under the J & K Consumer Protection Act. We find no reason to make further discussion on the arguments advanced by the counsel of the appellant with regard to the protection which may be available under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, because that aspect of the matter has been dealt-with in detail by the Forum below. However, from the record we find, that respondent has made improvements for getting the exaggerated claim. That aspect has also been properly appreciated by the Forum. Ram Dular is a padded witness of the respondent and speaks of embellishments being made. He is a resident of different village. However, from the record we find, that respondent has made improvements for getting the exaggerated claim. That aspect has also been properly appreciated by the Forum. Ram Dular is a padded witness of the respondent and speaks of embellishments being made. He is a resident of different village. To that effect, the Forum has held that complainant has not given the details about the expenditure incurred by him in allegedly sending Ram Dular to bring the addressee back to Jammu. The Forum has appreciated the amount of compensation in a reasonable and fair manner and we do not find any cogent reason to increase the amount of compensation, granted in favour of the respondent. For the above said discussion we find no merit in this appeal; which is dismissed, without any order as to costs. The appeal is consigned to records. The record of the Forum be returned at once.