REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 494 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal no. 217 of 2011. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner handed over an envelope addressed to M/s A Adarsh Law Firm , A 144, Ground Floor, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi 110 095 to the respondent no. 2 / opposite party no. 2 and obtained receipt no. 05509917 on 27.01.2009. The respondent returned the letter undelivered to the petitioner mentioning lways closedon 01.02.2009. The envelope did not bear any date and time when the staff of the respondent no. 1 went to deliver the letter to the addressee. The said envelope was returned back and delivered to the petitioner within four days of the booking indicated that the concerned staff of the respondent did not go to the addressee perhaps it may be at a long distance from the office of the respondent at New Delhi. On receipt back of the envelope, the petitioner sent another copy to the above mentioned letter to the same address through post office under registered AD and it was properly delivered at the same address. The envelope contained notice of the other party to the client of the petitioner and reply to the legal notice which was sent by the petitioner to one of his clients to prosecute him under section 406 and 420 IPC. There was, thus gross deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Due to non-delivery of the said envelope to the addressee in time caused the petitioner not only heavy mental tension and expenditure but also loss of confidence on the petitioner by the client. 3. Petitioner has requested that the respondent may be directed as under: (i) Refund Rs.15/- as the money paid to the respondent for making delivery of the envelope to the addressee; (ii) To make payment of Rs.30/- the money spent on again sending the envelope to the address through postal registration system; (iii) To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment; (iv) To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the client of the petitioner; (v) To make payment of Rs.500/- the cost of the legal notice; (vi) Make payment of Rs.1100/- as fee of the advocate; (vii) To grant any other relief which the Forum may consider just and proper. 4. In their written statement the respondent/ opposite party have denied the allegation of deficiency of service. The Vishwas Nagar Office of the respondent sent the said dak for distribution thrice at the written address, but all the three times because of the closure of the firm at the written address the dak could not be delivered and the said dak was returned to Jaipur by the Delhi Office and the Jaipur Office on the same date returned to the consignor. 5. The respondent does the work of dak delivery properly and it was not possible that the dak was not delivered to the addressee howsoever far it was away from the office of the respondent. The respondent does the work of delivery of the dak to all the address mentioned in the dak and distance does not hinder the delivery. The respondent attempted thrice to deliver the dak at the mentioned address but the said firm being closed, the dak was returned to the consignor at Jaipur. In this way the respondent did not commit deficiency in service. 6. The petitioner booked the dak for Delhi on 17.01.2009 that was sent to Delhi vide Challan no.1568 on 27.01.2009 and the said dak could not be delivered and was sent back to Jaipur vide challan no. 8982 from Delhi to Jaipur on 01.02.2009. The respondent on 01.02.2009 handed over the dak to the petitioner. In this way the respondent on his own side attempted to deliver the said dak but because of closure of the firm at the mentioned address it was not possible to deliver the dak at Delhi. In this way the respondent did not commit any deficiency in service. 7. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur First, Jaipur (he District Forum vide order dated 04.01.2011 had dismissed the complaint and they held that: he statement of the complainant that the envelope was returned only after four days in this context, the time is not so short that taking Delhi, from 27.01.2009 and 01.02.2013 that the envelope was kept undelivered and returned cannot be considered as proved. In the above circumstances the complainant could not prove the deficiency in service of the OP. Thus the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 14.12.2012 has confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal on merit. 9. Hence the present revision petition. The main grounds for the revision petition are that: The State Commission has erred in dismissing the appeal without giving any reasons for the dismissal of the same. The order is non-speaking in this connection the Honle Supreme Court in its judgment in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evan Vikas Parisha vs Sheo Narain Kushwaha and Ors (2011) 6 SCC 456 has clearly held that an order appealable has to be reasoned. Both District Forum and the State Commission erred in not looking to the fact that the envelope was returned with the remark lways closedthat means the staff went many times to deliver the envelope but it has not shown the dates on which the staff of the respondent went to deliver the envelope to the addressee. That means the remarks were false and misleading. 10. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner has written twice to state that his case may be decided on merits on the basis of documents available on record and that he does not have any advocate. 11. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. We note that a non-speaking order was delivered by the State Commission, Jaipur, while dismissing the appeal. Instead of remanding the matter back to the State Commission, we propose to decide the case on merit on the basis of the documents and records available. 12. The only basis on which the petitioner has alleged gross deficiency of service on the part of the respondent is that he said envelope was returned back undelivered within four days of the booking indicated that the concerned staff of the defendants did not go to the addressee, perhaps it may be at a long distance from the office of the defendant at New Delhiand hat on receipt back of the envelope the complainant has sent another copy of the above-mentioned letter to the same address through post office under Registered AD and it was properly delivered at the same address Petitioner has alleged that the concerned staff of the respondent did not go to the address but has placed no evidence on record to support the same. He has also not placed on record the proof of the letter delivered through Registered AD. There is also no proof that both the envelopes were addressed to the same addressee and at the same address. 13. We also agree with the District Forum that merely because the envelope was returned after four days cannot be taken as the time too short to affect delivery and it does not prove that the respondents made no attempts to deliver the envelope. 14. Further, as observed in the order of the District Forum the respondents have stated in their reply that thrice they attempt to deliver the article but all the three times firm was found to be closed. In support of their contention they have submitted an affidavit. We agree with the District Forum that there is no reason before us to disbelieve the same. 15. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and which was confirmed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.