GARRY RANA Vs. DIRECTOR DTDC HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum-II) dated 9.1.2006 in Complaint Case No.434 of 2005: Garry Rana V/s. The Director, DTDC House and Another.

(2.) Briefly the case of the complainant is that he had booked a courier containing an application for delivery at Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter to be referred as H. P. P. S. C.), Nigam Vihar, Shimla on 30.4.2005. This application was required to reach the H. P. P. S. C. on 2.5.2005. The O. P. No.2 while booking the courier assured the complainant that the courier will be delivered to the addressee by the due date. For booking the courier, a receipt dated 30.4.2005 duly signed was given to the complainant and it also reflected that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.40 for sending the courier. On 2.5.2005, the complainant visited the office of O. P. No.2 to check if the courier had been delivered and he was assured and informed that the needful has been done. However, on 21.5.2005, the complainant received a letter (Annexure C-1) from H. P. P. S. C. intimating him that his application had been received after last date prescribed for receipt of the applications and it was, therefore, rejected and consequently, he had been debarred from appearing in the competitive examination of H. P. P. S. C. The complainant further alleges that the Himachal Pradesh Government had notified and amended the H. P. Judicial Services Rules on 20th March, 2005 in consultation with the High Court fixing minimum age of eligibility to appear in the said judicial examination at 22 years and the maximum at 30 years. Resultantly, the maximum age limit to appear in H. P. P. S. C. judicial examination has been reduced by five years, which has further limited the scope of the complainant. On visiting the O. P. No.2 in this connection, the complainant was informed that his courier was delivered on 3.5.2005. Alleging this delay in delivering the courier as deficiency in service, the complainant had filed the complaint praying for award of a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs as compensation for mental harassment, spoiling of bright future perspective, opportunity of gaining social status on higher side and another amount of Rs.2,000 being the amount deposited by him as fee for filing application and also Rs.40 for courier service along with interest @ 18% per annum till payment along with costs of litigation.

(3.) The O. Ps. in their written statement took preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim against the O. Ps. can be filed only within one month. It is also the case of the O. Ps. that they are liable to pay only Rs.100 as damages, which was amicably decided between them and the complainant at the time of booking the consignment. The O. P. has conceded that the consignment was booked on 30.4.2005 but has emphasized that it was not disclosed at the time of booking that what was lying inside the consignment and it is denied that any undertaking was given by the O. Ps. to the complainant about the date of delivery of the courier. It has also been stated that normally it takes 4 to 5 days for a courier like this to be delivered at Shimla.