MAST RAM vs MARUTI COURIER SERVICE PVT LTD

-HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

HE submits that there was gross deficiency in service by the respondent, Mr. Maruti Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. , in not delivering the letter cover containing the application of the complainant for appearing in the examination to be conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for the posts of Civil Judges/magistrates. The last date for receipt of the application by the RPSC was 9. 1. 2006. Accordingly, the petitioner lost the golden opportunity for appearing in the examination on which he pitched all his hopes. This matter was contested by the respondent who submitted that the courier letter was sent for delivery from Chandigarh to Ajmer on 6. 1. 2006 but could not be delivered to RPSC as 7th and 8th January, 2007 were holidays. On 9. 1. 2006, when the courier boy went to deliver the said letter at the office of the RPSC, the receiving clerk refused to take the delivery as it was a private courier. Accordingly, the courier boy dropped it in the post-box. Subseqently, the complainant got the reply from RPSC stating that the application was received late and the examination fee was refunded. Shocked by the letter received from RPSC, he filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000. The opposite party also contended that RPSC was not made a party though it was a necessary party, which alone could answer the contention of refusal of the letter on 9. 1. 2006. The District Forum, after perusing Exhibit O-2 dated 9. 1. 2006 produced by the opposite party, which reflects that 4 documents from Sl. Nos. 4 to 7 including the documents of the complainant were put in the post-box of RPSC Ajmer on 9. 1. 2006. Those documents were duly submitted and signed by Mr. Manohar Singh, proprietor of the courier agency at Ajmer. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. Before the State Commission, the complainant had quoted a citation P. L. Bansal v. Speedway Couriers Ltd. , III (1996) CPJ 569, which pertains to delivery of documents by a courier agency on an emergency basis for which the courier agency had charged a sum of Rs. 100 instead of Rs. 20 which were the usual charges.

In the present case, the complainant had paid only the usual charges of Rs. 25 and not the emergency delivery charges which would have been a higher amount to ensure fast track delivery. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with a well reasoned order of the District Forum concurred by the State Commission in its detailed order.

HENCE, this revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.