IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 175/2010 & C.C. No.176/2010 (Filed on 10.12.2010)1. C.C. No. 175/2010 Between: 1. Salem Thomas, Lachiyeth Puthuparampil House, Kidangannur P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist. 2. Minu Ann Salem, W/o Sri. Salem Thomas. --do-- --do— (By Adv. Rajan Babu) .... Complainants. And: 1. General Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, Kottayam. 2. Branch Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, Pandalam. (By Adv. Bijoy Varghese Koshy) .... Opposite parties. 2. C.C. No.176/2010 Between: 1. Salem Thomas, Lachiyeth Puthuparampil House, Kidangannur P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist. 2. Minu Ann Salem, W/o Sri. Salem Thomas. --do-- --do— (By Adv. Rajan Babu) .... Complainants. And: 1. General Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, Kottayam. 2. Branch Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, Pandalam. (By Adv. Bijoy Varghese Koshy) .... Opposite parties. COMMON ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainants in both cases are same persons and the first opposite party in both cases is the General Manager of Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kottayam and the issues in both cases are also one and the same. The only difference is that the second opposite party in both cases are different branches of the first opposite party. Therefore, a common order is passed for both cases for the sake of convenience. 2. The complainants’ case is that the second complainant is the wife of the first complainant and the first complainant is presently working at Arnachal Pradesh and the second complainant is the Power of Attorney Holder of the first complainant. The second complainant is contesting the cases for herself and for and on behalf of the first complainant by virtue of the Power of Attorney executed by the first complainant in favour of the second complainant. The father of the first complainant late Thomas Varghese purchased certain debenture certificates of the first opposite party from Pandalam and Pathanamthitta branch of the first opposite party in the name of the complainants and the said certificates were in the possession of the complainants. When the certificates were matured, the complainants with an intention to surrender the certificates searched the certificates. But it is found that the said certificates were lost from their possession. So they approached the opposite parties for issuing the duplicate of the debenture certificates several time. But they have not issued the duplicate certificates. Thereafter on 22.07.2010, the complainants issued registered notice to the opposite parties for the issuance of the duplicate certificates. Even then they have not issued the duplicate certificates. Because of the non-issuance of the duplicate certificates, the complainants could not surrender the debenture certificates and thereby they have sustained financial loss and mental agony. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence this complaints for an order directing the opposite parties to issue the duplicate certificates of the debenture certificates referred in both cases to the complainants at the earliest along with a total compensation of ` 24,000 and cost of ` 2,000 for both cases. 3. The opposite parties in both cases entered appearance and filed separate versions for each case. But the contentions in their version in both cases are one and the same. The opposite parties admitted the issuance of the debenture certificates referred in both cases and the complainants’ request for the issuance of the duplicate certificates. But according to the opposite parties, the deceased Thomas Varghese who had purchased the debenture certificates had some other legal heirs also, other than the complainants and the said legal heirs orally put claim over the certificates. So the opposite parties directed the complainants to produce their identity documents several time. But they failed to produce the identity documents as directed by the opposite parties, which resulted in the non-issuance of the duplicate certificates. The opposite parties are ready and willing to issue the duplicate certificates if the Forum directs and if the complainants produce their identity documents along with declaration of the other legal heirs to the effect that they have no claim over the debenture certificates. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be decided is whether these complaints can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence of both cases consists of the proof affidavits of the second complainant in both cases and Exts. A1 and A2 series in C.C. 175/2010 and Exts. A1 and A2 series in C.C. 176/2010. Opposite parties had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 6. The Point: The complainants’ allegation against the opposite parties is that the debenture certificates purchased by late Thomas Varghese, the father-in-law of the second complainant and the father of the first complainant in the name of the complainants were in their possession and it was lost from their possession. Thereafter, the complainants approached and demanded the opposite parties for the issuance of the duplicate debenture certificates. But the opposite parties disallowed the complainants’ demand. The above said act of the opposite parties is illegal and the opposite parties are liable to issue the duplicate debenture certificates along with compensation and cost. 7. In order to prove the complainants’ case, the second complainant filed proof affidavits in both cases for herself and for and on behalf of the first complainant in lieu of her chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit filed in C.C. 175/2010, the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2 series. Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney executed by the first complainant in favour of the second complainant. Ext.A2 is a temporary receipt No.50368 dated 23.11.2006 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants showing the payment of ` 31,000 for the purchase of the opposite parties’ debenture certificate. Ext.A2(a) is the temporary receipt No. 50369 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 34,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. Ext.A2(b) is the temporary receipt No. 50370 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 34,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. Ext.A2(c) is the temporary receipt No. 50373 dated 23.11.2006 for `32,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the first complainant and Mr. Sharon Thomas. Ext.A2(d) is the temporary receipt No. 52506 dated 09.10.2006 for ` 35,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. 8. On the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the second complainant in C.C. 176/2010, the documents produced therein were marked as Exts. A1 and A2 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of Power of Attorney executed by the first complainant in favour of the second complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of the temporary receipt No.136473 dated 16.09.2009 issued by the opposite parties in the name of Minu Ann Salem, Punnamala (Thadathil), Kidangannoor, Pathanamthitta showing the payment of ` 35,000 for the purchase of the opposite parties’ debenture certificate. Ext.A2(a) is the copy of the temporary receipt No.136472 dated 16.09.2009 for ` 35,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of Salem Thomas. T., Punnamala (Thadathil), Kidangannoor, Pathanamthitta. 9. On the other hand, the opposite parties had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. But they have made an oral argument on the basis of the contentions raised in their version. 10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the materials on record and found that 5 debenture certificates were issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants in C.C. 175/2010 and 2 debenture certificates were issued in the name of the complainants and others in C.C. 176/2010. The opposite parties have no case that the original debenture certificates were not lost and they are still in the possession of the complainants. So we are inclined to accept the contention of the complainants that the original debenture certificates were lost from their possession and hence they are entitled to get the duplicate debenture certificates from the opposite parties. But the opposite parties argument for justifying their act of non-issuance of the duplicate debenture certificates is that the certificates were purchased by one Thomas Varghese and he is no more and the other legal heirs of the said Thomas Varghese made oral claim over the certificates. So they directed the complainants to produce the complainants’ identity documents and declaration from the other legal heirs to the effect that they have no claim over the certificates. But the complainants failed to do so which is the reason for the non-issuance of the duplicate debenture certificates. They also submitted that if the Forum directs and if the complainants comply the direction of the opposite parties, they re ready and willing to give the duplicates to the complainants. But on a perusal of undisputed Ext.A2 series documents in both cases, it is seen that the debenture certificates were issued in the name of the complainants. Since the debenture certificates are issued in the name of the complainants, the death of the purchaser is immaterial and irrelevant and hence the demand of the opposite parties for the production of the ‘no claim’ declaration of the other legal heirs of the deceased Thomas Varghese is also unwarranted. But the demand for the production of identity documents of the complainants is highly necessary in cases like this. But the complainants failed to produce any evidence showing that they have produced their identity documents before the opposite parties. Therefore, we find no deficiency of service against the opposite parties. However, the complainants are entitled to get the duplicates of the debenture certificates from the opposite parties and hence these complaints can be allowed to that extent without compensation and cost. 11. In the result, these complainants are allowed in part as follows: (a) The opposite parties in C.C. 175/2010 is directed to issue the duplicate debenture certificates pertaining to Ext.A2 series (Exts.A2 to A2(d) to the concerned debenture holders in whose name the debenture certificates are issued by the opposite parties. (b) The opposite parties in C.C. 176/2010 is directed to issue the duplicate debenture certificates pertaining to Ext.A2 series (Exts.A2 and A2(a) to the concerned debenture holders in whose name the debenture certificates are issued by the opposite parties. (c) The opposite parties in both cases are also directed to issue the duplicate certificates to the second complainant, if the second complainant produces proper Power of Attorney for collecting the duplicates of the other debenture holders other than the second complainant. The parties are directed to comply this order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2011. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: C.C. No. 175/2010. Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants: A1 : Power of Attorney executed by the first complainant in favour of the second complainant. A2 : Temporary receipt No.50368 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 31,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. A2(a) : Temporary receipt No. 50369 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 34,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. A2(b) : Temporary receipt No. 50370 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 34,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. A2(c) : Temporary receipt No. 50373 dated 23.11.2006 for ` 32,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the first complainant and Mr. Sharon Thomas. A2(d) : Temporary receipt No. 52506 dated 09.10.2006 for ` 35,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainants. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. C.C. No. 176/2010. Witness examined on the side of the complainants: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants: A1 : Power of Attorney executed by the first complainant in favour of the second complainant. A2 : Temporary receipt No.136473 dated 16.09.2009 issued by the opposite parties in the name of Minu Ann Salem, Punnamala (Thadathil), Kidangannoor, Pathanamthitta showing the payment of ` 35,000 for the purchase of the opposite parties’ debenture certificate. A2(a) : Temporary receipt No.136472 dated 16.09.2009 for ` 35,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of Salem Thomas. T., Punnamala (Thadathil), Kidangannoor, Pathanamthitta. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) Salem Thomas, Lachiyeth Puthuparampil House, Kidangannur P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) General Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, Kottayam. (3) Branch Manager, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, Pandalam. (4) The Stock File. | 
