KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL .NO. 262/07 JUDGMENT DATED: 12.2.2008 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Trissur in CC.No.474/06 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. Regional Transport Officer, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-3. 2. Kerala State, Rep.by District Collector, : APPELLANTS Ayyanthole, Thrissur. (Shri. Paraniyam Devakumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader) Vs. George Thattil, : RESPONDENT Insurance Investigator, T.C.35/2653, 3rd Floor, Utility Building, Nehru Nagar, Thrissur 680 001. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties, the RTO Trissur and the State of Kerala. The order appealed against is the direction to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant who is an Insurance Investigator that he applied the RC particulars of KL7-5424 for submitting the report with respect to the claim by the owner of the vehicle, entrusted by the Insurance Company. He remitted Rs.50/- as fees on 9.8.05. Till the date of complaint he did not received the RC particulars. He had sought for a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The opposite parties have filed a joint version admitting the application for the RC particulars . The delay is explained as follows: 4. The vehicle was registered before the registering authority at Ernakulam and subsequently the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the person living within the jurisdiction of additional registering authority, Thrissur. The particular register was handed over to Kudumbasree Unit for data entry work. It is also mentioned that the office of the 1st opposite party was handed over PWD and for about one year the office building was in the custody of PWD and in the meantime the office was functioning at the top floor of the civil station. The office records were not properly arranged. It is mentioned that subsequently on 7.8.06 the RC particulars were sent to the complainant by registered post. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant and exts.P1 and P2 ie the receipt of remittal of Rs.50/- and the copy of the registered letter dated 27.1.2006. 6. It is contended by the appellant that there is no proper evidence as to loss sustained by the complainant. We find that there is a delay of exactly one year in furnishing the particulars. It is specifically mentioned in the Ext.P2 registered notice that the claim is pending with the Insurance Company for want of the particulars for the report to be submitted by the complainant. The delay of 1 year, we find, has not found properly explained. The complainant who has filed proof affidavit was not cross examined. No evidence was adduced at the instance of the opposite parties. It is only on 7.8.06 after the filing of the complaint that the particulars were sent to the complainant from the R.T.O. office. Evidently there is deficiency in service. It cannot be believed that the entire documents for about one year was entrusted with the Kudumbasree unit without keeping the copy of the same. The delay as already mentioned is of one year. The same indicative of the difficulties faced by the complainant. The amount ordered as compensation is only reasonable. We find no interference is call for. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps | 
