Present Smt. Saji Mathew, Member.<br /> The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a nursing student at Lurd's Hospital, Eranakulam. She has sent an application for Bishop Pathroni's Scholarship through the 2nd opposite party, who is the agent of 1st opposite party. The complainant has entrusted the consignment at the office of the 2nd opposite party on 30.10.06. The last date for applying for the Scholarship was 31.10.06. The manager of 2nd opposite party assured that the application would reach speedily and safely. The complainant has paid Rs.15 as service charge. The opposite party did not deliver the application in time. They have returned the cover without stating proper reason. So the complainant has suffered loss and agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has lost the chance of obtaining a scholarship of Rs. 25,000/-. The scholarship would have been sanctioned if the application was delivered on 31.10 06. So the complainant is praying for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/-as compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties appeared and filed version. They state that the assignment was entrusted to them on 30.10.06 at 4. PM. From the midnight of 29.10.06 onwards, heavy vehicles including Private buses were on strike against the order of Kerala Government for installing speed governers in heavy vehicles. The 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that there is no guarantee to serve the courier in time. Then the complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to keep the consignment in the office and send it to the addressee if possible. On the repeated request of the complainant and on the belief that the strike will be called off after the<br /> scheduled discussion between the Chief Minister and the vehicle owners the next day, the 2nd opposite party accepted the consignment. He had informed the complainant about their inability to send the consignment. The non delivery of courier was due to reasons beyond the control of opposite parties. The vehicle strike was declared much prior to 30.10.2006 and the complainant had kept the alleged application till the second last date with some malafide intension. So the opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 Ext. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. 2nd opposite party was examined as OPW1. Ext B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The points to be decided are as follows:<br /> <br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The opposite party has accepted the consignment and received Rs.15/- as service charge. Both the complainant and opposite party know about the vehicle strike. The opposite party in his deposition has stated that K.S.R.T.C. Buses were plying during the strike. He has stated that he has no agreement with KSRTC. Hence it is clear that he had not taken any effort for sending the consignment. 2nd opposite party has returned the consignment, but has not returned the service charge accepted by them. So the 1st point is found against the 2nd opposite party.<br /> 6. Point No.2: No evidence has been adduced by the complainant for showing that she has lost the scholarship only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not produced any document to show that scholarship was given to anybody who is of the same qualifications as hers or below. Besides Ext. A6 shows that the complainant has not obtained scholarship because she has not submitted the necessary certificates. But she has<br /> entrusted a consignment with the 2nd opposite party and he has not taken any reasonable effort to send it. So the Point No.2 is decided in favor of the complainant.<br /> <br /> Hence the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only)as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of this order.<br /> Pronounced in the open forum on the day of 30th June, 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/- <br /> Sd/-<br /> /True copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> APPENDIX.<br /> Witness examined for Complainant:<br /> PW1 Anne K. Mathew Complainant<br /> Witness examined for Opposite parties:<br /> OPW 1 Yoosef Business<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Series Copy of lawyer notice, postel receipt and AD card.<br /> A2 Returned cover<br /> A3 Receipt issued by 2nd Opposite party.<br /> A4 copy of V.H.S.C certificate and marklist<br /> A5 Copy of award issued by the PTA, GVHS Kalpetta.<br /> A6 Letter issued from St. Joseph's Church, Vythiri.<br /> A7 Course and conduct Certificate.<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> B1 Model of the receipt<br /> B2 Mathrubhumi daily News paper.<br /> B3 Mathrubhumi daily News paper