Appeal No.755/08


1.M.C.Express,Courier & Cargo Service,Jaipur

2.

Khandelwal Communication & Stationers,Jaipur Appellants

V.

Umrao Singh Respondent



Appeal No.687/08


Umrao Singh Complainant appellant

V.

1.M.C.Express,Courier & Cargo Service,Jaipur

2.Khandelwal Communication & Stationers,Jaipur Respondents

Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Chandra Prakash Vashishtha,counsel for the appellants-ops

Umrao Singh,complainant respondent in person



Date of judgement: 5.5.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION


These two appeals are being decided by this common judgement as both of them have been preferred against the order dated 17.3.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.249/07.



2


Appeal No.755/08


This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum-I,Jaipur against the order dated 17.3.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.249/07,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant no.1 in the manner that the appellant no.1 was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant respondent as amount of compensation and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation within one month otherwise interest @ 12% p.a would be charged on the above amount and rest claim of the complainant respondent was denied.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 20.2.07 interalia stating that an application form for appearing in the examination of APP.II,for the year 2006-07 was sent by him through the courier service of appellant no.1 on 24.11.06 and the same was sent to the Secretary,RPSC,Ajmer and for that Rs.11/- were charged from the complainant respondent by appellant no.1. It was further stated in the complaint that appellant no.1 had agreed that the form in question would reach at Ajmer within two days but that form had reached at Ajmer on 4.12.06 though the last date of receipt of the form had expired on 31.11.06 and for the deficiency the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants on 30.4.07 before the District Forum and in the reply it was stated by the appellants that at the time of taking the form for delivery no assurance was given and it was further replied that all the contents made in the complaint were false one and it was further stated in the reply that the form in question was put in the box maintained by the RPSC in time. Hence there was no deficiency in

3


service on the part of the appellants and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 17.3.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above, interalia holding that since the appellants had failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the envelope was put in the box and that fact could be proved by some sort of evidence and since no such evidence has been produced by the appellants,therefore,deficiency in service was found on the part of the appellant no.1 in not delivering the envelope in time.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the envelope in question has been put in the box maintained by the RPSC,therefore,to say that it was not delivered in time was wrong one and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the complainant respondent present in person has supported the impugned order.


We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the complainant respondent.


In our considered opinion,from the receipt which is on file,the fact that the envelope was sent by the courier service of appellant no.1 to RPSC,Ajmer is well proved and from letter dated 31.1.07 issued by the Secretary,RPSC,Ajmer,the fact that the said envelope was received on 4.12.06 is also proved.


4


The fact that the envelope in question was put in the box by appellant no.1 in time could be proved by some other evidence for example,the despatch register,since there is nothing on record to prove that fact by any evidence therefore,in absence of that the case of the appellant no.1 that the envelope in question was put in the box in time,could not be found established and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was allowed are liable to be confirmed one.


On point of compensation,it may be stated here that looking to the fact that the envelope was for appearing in the examination of APP.II and if an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded by the District Forum as amount of compensation and Rs.2000/- as amount of cost,it could not be said that this amount is unjust or improper. Thus so far as the merits of the case as well as on point of compensation is concerned,this appeal deserves to be dismissed.


Appeal No.687/08


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation.


While deciding appeal no.755/08 the amount of compensation as awarded by the District Forum had been found just and proper and this appeal filed by the complainant appellant also deserves to be dismissed.


For reasons as stated above,these two appeals are dismissed accordingly.




Member President