MAST RAM vs MARUTI COURIER SERVICE PVT LTD

-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 21. 5. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed being meritless.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) Mast Ram is law graduate having passed his LL. B from Kurukshetra University in the year 2001 with 57% marks. He had applied to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer for examination for the post of Civil Judge for the State of Rajasthan and sent the form duly filled along with fee of Rs. 200 by way of Indian postal order payable to Secretary, Rajasthan Public Services Commission at Ajmer and sent the same through an envelope supplied by the Commission itself through courier service of the respondents for which last date for submission of application was 9. 1. 2006. On the envelope it was written ''application form for the Rajasthan Judicial Examiantion, 2005''. He had purchased the necessary books and was very serious to take examination and went to the office of respondent No. 2 and asked them about the charges and time schedule of delivery of the courier. Respondent No. 2 had informed him that the envelope would be delivered without fail on 6. 1. 2006 and written assurance was taken from respondent No. 2 on a booklet Annexure R-III that delivery schedule to any place in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi was 24 hours or 48 hours and for other places all over India was 48 hours or 72 hours. Believing this assurance, he had sent the envelope on 5. 1. 2006 vide receipt Annexure IV. On 9. 1. 2006 he enquired from respondent No. 2 about the delivery of the application form who assured him that the courier had been delivered in time. Later on he received letter Annexure V from Rajasthan Public Service Commission about the rejection of application as it had not reached in its office till 9. 1. 2006. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed as his dream of becoming a Judge/magistrate had been spoiled. He claimed Rs. 20 lakh for deficiency in service.

Respondents contested the complaint and stated that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary party namely Rajasthan Public Service Commission. On merits, it denied the allegations and stated that the delivery boy had gone on 9. 1. 2006 to deliver the envelope as 7th and 8th January, 2006 were holidays but the officials of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short RPSC) refused to accept the form and stated that they accepted application form if delivered personally or through simple post/registered A. D. or speed post and not through private courier service. On their asking, delivery boy put the envelope in the delivery box. They next stated that the appellant had chosen simple courier method and paid Rs. 25 for delivery of envelope at RPSC, Ajmer which was delivered on 9. 1. 2006 vide delivery challan Annexure O-2 and as such there was no deficiency in service and complaint should be dismissed.

PARTIES adduced evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 21. 5. 2007 dismissed the complaint as meritless.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Counsel for respondents Mr. Neeraj Sobti and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that appellant/complainant had sent an envelope through Shree Maruti Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. containing the filled form for examination of Civil Judge and fee of Rs. 200 by way of Indian postal order payable to Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer on 5. 1. 2006. The case of respondent is that the envelope could not be delivered on 7th and 8th January, 2006 as these were holidays due to Saturday and Sunday but when on 9. 1. 2006 the delivery boy went to the office of RPSC, Ajmer to deliver the envelope, officials of RPSC had refused to accept the same by saying that they only accepted the envelope sent through registered A. D/ordinary post and through speed post or personally but not through private courier service and as such the envelope should be put in the delivery box and accordingly the envelope was put in the delivery box on 9. 1. 2006. Respondents had stated in the written reply that they had charged Rs. 25 for providing courier service for sending the envelope to its destination and it was required to be delivered within 72 hours as per standard time as it was beyond Punjab, Haryana and Delhi zone.

IT is not the case of appellant that it was told to the respondents that there was an emergency and in any event it must reach on or before 9. 1. 2006 i. e. , it is further not case of appellant that since it was sent on emergency basis so, instead of Rs. 25 respondent had charged enhanced sum of more than Rs. 25. The letter Annexure A-13 dated 10. 3. 2006 issued by RPSC, Ajmer shows that the last date for receiving the application form by post and personally was 9. 1. 2006 and since it was received on 12. 1. 2006,so, it was rejected being time-barred and Rs. 200 sent by way of postal order were returned to the appellant (complainant ). Annexure A-4/1 is copy of the letter of RPSC dated 29. 11. 2006. According to this letter also, it is mentioned that the application form could be sent through registered AD/speed post or handed over personally. Again it is not mentioned in it that the application form along with postal order could be sent through courier service. For this reason, officials of RPSC asked the delivery boy to put the envelope in the letter box.

THERE is affidavit Ex. O. 3 of Mr. Naveen delivery boy dated 26. 12. 2006 on the file. It shows that on 9. 1. 2006 Monday he had gone to RPSC, Ajmer for handing over four envelops couriers but the same were refused by the concerned official by saying that they only receive/give signatures on the registered AD and not receive through courier service and he further asked him to drop the said envelopes in the delivery box. He next stated that before dropping the said envelopes in the delivery box, he informed his branch manager at Ajmer who further called the different stations and thereafter getting approval from the said stations, branch manager instructed him to put the envelopes in the delivery box. He again went to RPSC and delivered the same by putting the envelopes in the box on 9. 1. 2006. There is affidavit of Sh. Mast Ram on file which shows that he had got sent the envelope on 5. 1. 2006 and respondent had promised to deliver it before 9. 1. 2006. Admittedly it was not mentioned by the appellant on the envelope that its delivery must be made on or before 9. 1. 2006 and it was urgent. If he had mentioned these facts, then respondents would have charged extra amount and in that event if they were not able to deliver the envelope, then they would have been liable to pay compensation but no such fact was mentioned and it was simple courier for which they had charged Rs. 25. If the appellant had intended to get delivered the courier through fast track then respondent must have charged Rs. 165 for the State of Rajasthan.

Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in which he had stated that the delivery boy had delivered the envelope of the appellant in the RPSC, Ajmer on 9. 1. 2007 by putting in the delivery box. This fact is supported by the affidavit of delivery boy Sh. Naveen. The copy of the delivery register of the respondent Ex. O. 2 also proves the fact that the envelope from Chandigarh bearing No. 143202 was put in the delivery box on 9. 1. 2006.

THE authority P. L. Bansal v. Speedway Couriers Ltd. , III (1996) CPJ 569, cited by the learned Counsel for appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the above mentioned case the complaint had entrusted his application to the respondent on 27. 1. 1995 at their Sangrur office and was to be delivered at Himachal State Public Service Commission on or before 31. 1. 1995. Since, there was request of the complainant that it was most urgent, so, respondent charged a sum of Rs. 100 instead of Rs. 20 which were usual charges. However, on 17. 2. 1995 the application along with postal order of the fee was returned by the H. P. Service Commission with the objection that it was to be received in the office on 31. 1. 1995 and as it was received on a date after 31. 1. 1995, so, application was time-barred. In the above said authority, the person who carried the packet and allegedly delivered at the destination on 31. 1. 1995 was not produced as it was case of courier that it had delivered the packet on 31. 1. 1995 i. e. on the last date of receiving the form. However, in the present case it was sent through ordinary courier service and it was not mentioned that it was urgent delivery and respondent had charged some amount as extra amount. Further there is affidavit of Naveen who had categorically stated that he had delivered the envelope containing the form on 9. 1. 2006 i. e. last date but since officials of RPSC had refused to accept the same, so, on their asking it was put in the delivery box. Thus, in view of this affidavit coupled with document Ex. O-2 we hold that there was no deficiency on the part of respondents. Moreover, RPSC has not been made a party to prove that the delivery boy did not tender the envelope on 9. 1. 2006 and they had not refused to accept it by saying that it be put in the letter box and was not to be received by any official as it had not been sent by registered post A. D. /ordinary post or through speed post or personally.

THEREFORE, in view of the discussion above, we hold that there is no force in the appeal and consequently it is dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.