FNPO Seeks Rationalisation of CCC Complaint Handling Mechanism Under APT 2.0
FNPO Seeks Rationalisation of CCC Complaint Handling Mechanism Under APT 2.0
The Federation of National Postal Organisations (FNPO) has requested the Department of Posts to rationalise the Customer Care Centre (CCC) complaint-handling mechanism under APT 2.0, particularly in cases relating to the non-delivery of postal articles.
In a letter dated 23 September 2026 addressed to the Chairman, Postal Services Board, FNPO Secretary General Sivaji Vasireddy highlighted practical difficulties reportedly being faced by field officials due to the early generation and disposal timelines of CCC complaints.
Concern Over Early Generation of Non-Delivery Complaints
The letter points out that, under the existing Citizen Charter, customers are permitted to lodge a complaint regarding non-delivery of an article only after the prescribed period of 21 days. It also notes that, under the applicable delivery procedure, a Postman may retain an article for delivery for up to 7 days, wherever applicable.
However, FNPO states that complaints relating to non-delivery are reportedly being generated on the third day itself, resulting in considerable pressure on field officials to settle such complaints immediately, with an apparent focus on maintaining "NIL" pendency.
According to the Federation, such early escalation can place unnecessary pressure on delivery staff and other officials when the prescribed delivery or retention period has not yet been exhausted.
Request to Modify CCC Module in APT 2.0
FNPO has requested that the CCC module in APT 2.0 be suitably modified so that a customer can register or lock a complaint regarding non-delivery only after expiry of the period prescribed under the Citizen Charter.
Alternatively, the Federation has suggested that the system could provide a reasonable minimum period based on D+3+7 days, taking into account normal transmission and delivery time as well as the permissible retention period before treating an issue as a non-delivery grievance requiring intervention.
Concerns Regarding 24-Hour Closure Targets
The Federation has also raised concerns over the emphasis on numerical performance indicators such as "NIL pendency" and "24-hour disposal".
It states that during weekly reviews of CCC pendency, officials in some Circles and Divisions are reportedly being compelled to close complaints within 24 hours, irrespective of whether the underlying grievance has actually been resolved.
FNPO has emphasised that changing the status of a complaint to "closed" should not by itself be considered genuine grievance resolution. The objective of the grievance-redressal mechanism should be to identify the cause, provide appropriate relief to the customer and prevent recurrence.
Similar Concerns Raised Regarding CPGRAMS
The letter also refers to concerns relating to CPGRAMS grievances. FNPO states that in certain instances, pressure is reportedly being exerted for closure by furnishing an interim reply merely to reduce pendency.
The Federation has suggested that an interim communication may be appropriate where further examination is required, but such a communication should not be treated as final disposal unless the substantive grievance has been examined and appropriately addressed.
Key Suggestions by FNPO
The Federation has requested the Department to consider several measures, including:
- Modifying the CCC module so that non-delivery complaints are registered only after the prescribed period or a reasonable D+3+7-day period.
- Providing reasonable time to delivery and field staff to complete the normal delivery process.
- Avoiding instructions for mechanical closure of CCC complaints within 24 hours merely to achieve NIL or minimum pendency.
- Ensuring that CPGRAMS grievances are not treated as finally disposed of merely on the basis of an interim reply.
- Modifying review mechanisms to give greater importance to the quality, correctness and genuineness of grievance redressal rather than merely the number or percentage of complaints closed.
- Developing parameters to assess whether the complainant's grievance has actually been addressed and whether systemic deficiencies identified through complaints have been rectified.
Focus on Genuine Grievance Redressal
FNPO has acknowledged the Department's efforts to provide prompt and efficient customer service, while stating that speed of disposal should not come at the cost of genuine resolution or by placing unrealistic pressure on field officials.
The Federation has therefore requested that the matter be examined on priority and that appropriate modifications or instructions be issued to ensure that CCC and CPGRAMS remain genuine grievance-redressal mechanisms rather than systems driven primarily by statistical performance indicators.
The suggestions, if considered, would involve balancing timely customer service, operational delivery timelines and meaningful grievance resolution within the APT 2.0 framework.