This is a petition filed under Section 12 for an order directing the opposite party to return the SSLC book or Rs 5000/- along with RS 1400/- paid as D.D. and a sum of Rs 95000/- as compensation.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows. The complainant Mr. P.V. Damodaran forwarded the SSLC book of his son Biju for obtaining attestation from Central Government on 14.8.2003 by speed post along with a D.D. for Rs 1400/- drawn on North Malabar Gramin Bank as the fees of opposite party as demanded by him. The opposite party promised to return the SSLC book after obtaining attestation. The same was received by opposite party on 18.8.2003. But it was not returned. Since brother of Damodaran had been arranging employment visa to Dubai for his son Biju he was in urgent need of SSLC book. The attested copy of SSLC book required for the procurement of job in Dubai at that time. Lawyer notice was issued through Advocate K.V.Suresh Babu calling upon the opposite party to hand over SSLC book. Reply received with the information that the SSLC book was lost and opposite party was ready to meet the expense required for obtaining duplicate copy of SSLC book. Mr. Damodaran thereafter contacted Jamaludeen but did not get a proper answer from him. Mr. Damodaran was in doubt whether the certificate of his son was sold to somebody else by the opposite party. Hence he prays to direct the opposite party to return the SSLC book and D.D. amount of Rs 1400 and Rs 95000 as compensation for lost of employment and mental agony. He also prays for RS 5000/-as compensation for the SSLC book which is being lost.<br /> The opposite party filed version and contended that the petitioner has no locus standi or authority to put forth the complaint. He contended that nothing reasoned the present complainant to put forth a complaint nor any subsisting cause of action. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The venture of opposite party situates in Delhi undertaking service to the travelers visa , recruitment etc. Being the Proprietor of the licensed prestigious institution acquired with such integrity, the opposite party had no occasion to come across any complaint from any of the travelers . The opposite party further contended that it is humanly impossible to recollect and remember the identity of all the parties or their nature of work undertaken even if such a complaint put forth under the head of rare among rarest. He demands that under the above circumstances it was impossible to deny even if any traveler put forth any complaint . Bonafidely believing the representation of the complainant the opposite party kept in touch with the HRD Ministry and External Affairs Ministry and the UAE Embassy and had procured a copy of the SSLC certificate and got it attested again. This attested certificate was sent to Biju, the son of Damodaran through Blue Dart Couriers Delhi as early on 30.12.2003 . But it was returned unserved with an endorsement that no such addressee Biju .P.V. was available. The Embassy clearly set forth in the subsequently attested certificate that an earlier attestation was made on 29.8.2003 vide reference No.A/30297(1). If the said patent endorsement is read along with the missing of Biju and his employment abroad, opposite party contended that the same would show that some fraudulent tricks are being played by the men of the alleged complainant Biju. The opposite party contended further that a certificate attested in the name of Biju cannot used for others in any manner . Hence he is duty bound to explain how he secured employment abroad at that time. The opposite party further contended that the attempt of the complainant was to take advantage out of the impossibility of opposite party to recollect the real affairs and negotiations taken place at the time when Mr.Biju placed the documents for attestation. The opposite party also contended that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The allegation that Biju could not set up Gulf employmen t is fraud. The said Biju is now employed in Gulf , hence the opposite party is not liable for any compensation. <br /> <br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are frame d for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?<br /> 2. Wherther there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 4. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and documentary evidence A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant and B1 marked on the side of the opposite party. The opposite party has no oral evidence.<br /> <br /> ISSUE No.1. <br /> The complainant Damodaran is the father of Biju, whose SSLC book was lost. The opposite party contends that complainant has no locus standi or authority to put forth the complaint His son Biju is a ncesssary party.It is well settled position that even a family member is entitled to maintain a complaint . The decision in Spring Meadows Hospital case the Hon: Supreme Court observed that “ in view of the comprehensive definition of term “consumer” even a member of the family cannot be denied status of consumer under the Act and any action by any such member of the family for any deficiency in service, it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract”. Thus the complaint filed by the father is undoubtedly maintainable and the contention that it is bad for non joinder of necessary party is not atall acceptable one. Section 2(1)(d)II is simple and clear that a consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. Thus the complainant herein is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable. The issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> ISSUE No.2. It is admitted fact that the SSLC book of Biju, the son of complainant , had been forwarded for obtaining attestation from Central Government through the opposite party. The complainant’s case is that the opposite party promised to return the SSLC book after obtaining attestation. Ext.A1 will go to show that the SSLC book was received by the opposite party on 18.8.2003. The perusal of lawyer notice Ext.A2 and its reply confirms that SSLC book had not been sent back to the complainant or his son Biju. The opposite party, Jamaludeen , admitted in his reply to complainant that the SSLC book had been lost and he was ready to bear the expense required for obtaining a duplicate copy. The averments in the complaint with respect to the non return of SSLC book was not rebuted by the opposite party. It is well settled position that where the averments in the complaint are unrebutted, the presumption is that averments are true and correct. Thus it can be considered that as far as the complainant and his son Biju are concerned, the original SSLC book has been lost for ever , it is ultimately as a result of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party . The issue No.2 is found in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> ISSUE No.3. The third point is related to the amount of compensation. The quantum of compensation can only be adjudged and assured on the basis of well accepted principles . What is the actual damage is the basis that determines the amount of compensation. Though much spoken about various things , the complainant has failed to show by evidence the actual loss he suffered so as to ask for compensation of Rs 95000/-. Mr. Biju is having a passport. That was renewed from Dubai in the year 2007. Thus the specific case of opposite party is that Biju is employed abroad and that is the reason why he was not turned up before the Forum so as to adduce evidence. The complainant repeatedly argued that his son is now unemployed and very much disappointed . But his son Biju never turned up before the Forum. If he has given evidence before the Forum that his own experience it would have been helpful to a great extent to assess the actual damage. With the available evidence it is not shown that the son of Mr. Damodaran is unemployed. Ext.A3 passport No.G.3944679 which was renewed on 17.12.2007 has been endorsed ‘Emigration clearance requirements suspended’ on this endorsement can only be obtained by producing SSLC book. The complainant never attempted to explain how he managed to obtain such endorsement without SSLC book. Therefore we are of opinion that these facts has to be considered while considering the amount of damage. Ext.B1, attested copy of SSLC book was a successful attempt of opposite party to find an alternative solution for the problem, though not received by the opposite party. Considering all these aspects we are of opinion that in the interest of justice the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the loss of SSLC book with a sum of Rs 1500/- and the D.D. amount of Rs 1400/- with Rs 250/- as cost of this proceedings. The issue No.3 thus answered partly favourable to the complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay the c omplainant a sum of Rs 1500/- as compensation for the loss of SSLC book and Rs 1400/- as D.D/. amount with cost of Rs 250/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order against the opposite party as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/ MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Copy of the letter No.10.162.703.1171/04/11/2003 sent by customer care centre, Cannanore.<br /> A2. Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 20.11.2003 sent to the opposite party.<br /> A3. Photo copy of the passport of Biju Puthenveedu.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party <br /> B1. The returned envelop .<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party –NIL<br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />