P L BANSAL Vs. SPEEDWAY COURIERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant entrusted his application to the respondent on 27.1.95 at their Sangrur office and it was to be delivered at the office of the Himachal State Public Service Commission at Shimla on or before 31.1.95. The usual charges were Rs. 20/-, however, on a request that it was most urgent the respondent charged a sum of Rs. 100/-. On 17.2.95 the application together with the postal order of the fee was received from the aforesaid service commission with the objection that it was not received in the office on or before the last date which was 31.1.95. This letter is attached with the complaint. It has been alleged that the complainant had an experience of 12 years at the Bar and he could not take the examination on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Couriers. The complainant has claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs. The head office of respondent is located at Chandigarh.

(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been averred that the application was delivered to the Himachal Public Service Commission, Shimla on 31.1.95 well within time and that there was no deficiency on their part. Even otherwise the liability according to the terms contained on receipt issued was limited only upto Rs. 250/-.

(3.) There is a letter dated 17.2.95 from Himachal State Public Service Commission which shows that the application together with the Indian Postal Order of Rs. 100/- was returned to the complainant because it was received there after the expiry of the last date which was 31.1.95. The plea of the respondent that 28th January, 1995 was a holiday and the packet could not be delivered at Shimla. The version that it was delivered on 31.1.95 does not find support from any piece of evidence. The forms relied upon by the respondent at pages 31 and 33 of the record show that on 28th January, 1995 the packet could not be delivered at Shimla because it was not acceptable on that day being a holiday being a Saturday. On page 33 there is no clear entry of this packet whether it is 5912 or some other number and even in the column pertaining to destination, there is no signature of any recipient nor any note that it was delivered and if so on what date. Had the packet been delivered on 31.1.95, there was no reason for the Himachal State Public Service Commission to return it together with the Indian Postal Order of Rs. 100/- mentioning the specific reason that it was not received on or before the last date i.e., 31.1.95. There is no name or address or affidavit of the. person who carried the packet and allegedly delivered at the destination on 31.1.95. We hold that there was deficiency on the part of the respondent.