PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Parasnath Tiwari challenging the order dated 26-12-2017 passed by the State Commission Uttar Pradesh in first appeal No.2091 of 2014.

2.     The petitioner complainant sent a letter through speed post on 06.10.2010 to the District Magistrate/Election Officer (panchayat elections 2010) and the same was returned to the sender on 19.10.2010 without any remark. The complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties, however, getting no response, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 05.09.2014 allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.100/- along with Rs.250/- as compensation and Rs.200/- for litigation expenses to the complainant. If opposite party No.1 fails to do so, these amounts will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

3.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 26.12.2017 dismissed the appeal.

4.     Hence the present revision petition.

5.     The petitioner has sent a letter that it is not possible for him to attend the proceedings of this Commission and the order may be passed on merits after seeing the documents. Accordingly, I have perused the case file. The complainant is not satisfied with the compensation granted by the District Forum and therefore he filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after examining the case of the complainant, came to the conclusion that no case was made out for enhancing the compensation and the appeal was dismissed. It is also seen that in the grounds of revision petition, no ground has been mentioned for enhancing the compensation. In the complaint also, there is no clear mention as to what loss the complainant has suffered. For non-delivery of the speed post article to the addressee, the District Forum has appropriately compensated the complainant. The State Commission has also examined the question of quantum of compensation and dismissed the appeal. Looking at the concurrent orders passed by the fora below, I do not find any justification for enhancing the compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.     Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this commission and consequently the revision petition No. 1345 of 2018 is dismissed.