Madhur Courier Service                              ---- Petitioner 
                          Vs.
Hemant Kumar Namdeo                             ---- Respondent

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B.Shah, President, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member.

Dated: 17.12.2004

M.B.SHAH, J. (PRESIDENT):

     The revision application is filed against the judgement and order dated 22-3-2000 passed by MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 686/98. By the impugned order, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation to the complainant.

     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the complainant in person. The fact established on record is that petitioner is a courier. Complainant booked an envelope from Ujjain for being delivered at Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Rashtrapati Niwas, Shimla, HP. The envelope contained complainant's application for grant of fellowship. It is also established that for such service petitioner charged Rs.25/- as consideration for delivering the envelope and issued receipt on 12-9-1996. It is contended that envelope was to be delivered on or before 15-9-1996. It is also pointed out that instead of delivering the envelope by courier service petitioner posted it by affixing a stamp of Rs.1/- which was insufficient according to postal rights. Envelope was returned and the complainant lost the opportunity of getting Fellowship. On that basis, complaint was filed before the District forum.

     Before the District Forum, petitioner failed to remain present even though it was duly served. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.600/-. Against that order, complainant preferred appeal for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission allowed the said appeal and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- is totally unjustified. As against this, complainant submitted that complainant has suffered heavy loss. He has lost Fellowship of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 3 years. Considering the fact that petitioner was required to deliver the envelope and not to post it, it is apparent that there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. It is also apparent that petitioner ought not to have accepted Rs.25/- and post the said envelope by affixing Rs.1/- stamp. There is no reason for the petitioner to post the said envelope after accepting Rs.25/- from the complainant. For this deficiency in service and loss caused to the complainant, in our view impugned order does not call for any interference.

     Hence, this revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.