DOF.29.12.2010 DOO.23.5.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 23rd day of May 2011 CC.310/2010 Nhattiela Sreedharan, Nhattiela House, Mooliyil Nada, Vayalalam, Thalassery 3. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.K.K.Ramesh) Secretary, Thalassery Municipality, Thalassery. Opposite parties (Rep. by Adv.K.Ajithkumar) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return the documents 1682/48, 849/61 of SRO, Thalassery and to pay compensation of `50,000 with interest and cost. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant availed a loan as per 07-05/2002 L.J in the year 2002 from Kannur Development Authority. For getting the loan complainant produced property documents having No.1682/48, 849/61 of SRO, Thalassery together with pattayam as security. Kannur Development Authority ceased its existence as per the order of Municipal Director dated 10.9.2000 and the entire documents within the jurisdiction of Thalasery Municipality handed over to Secretary, Thalassery Municipality. Complainant after paying the entire loan amount applied for returning the document. His application was registered numbering as 17624. Secretary sent reply on 27.3.2003 stating that necessary steps would be taken. As per the direction complainant appeared before Municipal secretary on 11.9.2003 for taking back the document. But he was given only the pattayam and told him that they are searching for the other two documents and the same would be returned immediately. Complainant received only pattayam and returned home. Thereafter application was submitted before Public Information Officer and Municipal Engineer and received a reply informing that the related document 1682/48, 849/61 of SRO, Thalassery might have been lost while shifting the file and documents from Kannur Development Authority to Thalassery Municipality. Appeal was submitted before Thalassery Municipal council on 27.2.2010 against this decision. But complainant received same reply as that of earlier reply. Lawyer notice was sent to Secretary Municipality. But complainant received a reply dated 9.7.2010 saying that the documents has already been received back by the complainant and further demanded to return the received document within 7 days on 27.7.2010. Legal notice sent again asking for compensation. To this notice reply sent informing that they assume that that document might have been sent to some other panchayath and the Thalasery Municipality has no liability at all. As per the order of Municipal Director dt. 10.9.2010 Thalassery Municipality Secretary is the custodian of entire documents that comes within the jurisdiction of Thalassery with respect to the related documents of Kannur Development Authority. Hence Secretry, Thalassery Municipality is liable for the missing of documents, hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The opposite party Secretary, Thalassery Municipality submitted from the outset that he has taken charges as Thalassery Municipal Secretary one months before and he came to known the facts of this case only after getting the notice from the Forum. This office has never intend to make any trouble to the complainant. The alleged document was filed before Kannur Development Authority. This office has no notice what all documents the applicant has produced before the authority. It is true that all the files with in the jurisdiction of Thalassery Municipality were sent to this office when the functions of Kannur Development Authority come to an end. But details with respect to what all documents of each individual case have been sent to this office are not available. The complainant has paid entire dues on 20.3.03 and applied for returning the documents on 11.7.2007 he obtained the document and signed in the receipt endorsing that the pattayam received. Thereafter a long gap of 7 years he submitted application for returning some more documents. Though earnest attempt have been done no such documents related to the property of complainant could not be traced out in the office. This office is ready and willing to make all arrangements to get the certified copy of those documents from SRO, Thalassery. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, and Exts. A1 to A8. Opposite party adduced no evidence. Issue Nos.1 to 3 Admittedly complainant availed loan from Kannur Development Authority. Subsequently Kannur Development Authority ceased to existence as per the order of the Municipal Director dated 10.9.2000 . Hence entire files in connection with the loans within the jurisdiction of Thalassery Municipality shifted thereby to Thalassery Municipality. Complainant after clearing the loan amount applied Thalassery Municipality to return the documents. He received only pattayam and other two documents 1682/48, 849/61 of SRO, Thalassery left unserved. Complainant’s attempt to get back these two documents failed and thereby caused this complaint. Complainant filed affidavit evidence in lieu of chief examination in tune with the pleadings. Complainant was examined himself as PW1 and cross examined for opposite party. In cross examination he has deposed that he has produced the connected documents before the Forum in order to show what are the documents produced before Kannur Development Authority. Ext.A1 acknowledgement reveals that he has produced “B[m-cT \¼849 and 1652” . Ext.A1 undoubtedly proves that complainant produced the alleged document of complainant’s property before the Authority. He has further deposed that a letter of communication received from Thalassery Municipality asking him to pay the loan amount. It is then complainant realized that his document is with the Thalassery Municipality. Ext.A7 is the letter sent by Thalassery Municipality to complainant. The letter in details explained the fact that the Kannur Development authority ceased to existence and the concerned files and documents within the jurisdiction of Thassery Municipality has transferred to them. Ext.A7 alone is sufficient to come in to conclusion that the connected documents of complaiannt’s loan have shifted to Thalassery Municipality. It is also admitted in version. The version, the legal notice sent by the complainant Ext.A6, the reply Ext.A2 sent by Thalassery Municipality together with the oral evidence adduced by PW1 makes it clear that the documents in connection with the loan had been shifted to Thalassery Municipality. If the document could not be traced out the complainant is the sufferer and the Municipality has the liability to give proper explanation for this. It is not a question who is the individual official responsible for the loss of document. It maybe the net result of the total system of arrangement that have been set up. To make it clear it has to be bear in mind that whether or not the officials in Thalassery Municipality is responsible for the loss of alleged document has not been the prime question to be taken into account but what are the attempt that have been done by the Municipality to trace out the document is the relevant aspect to be considered so as to find the degree of deficiency in service. If nothing is done that is large and enough to establish deficiency in service on the side of opposite party. Municipality has not produced at any point of time any piece of evidence to show that any attempt on the part of Municipality have been done to trace out the documents in question. On the other hand the attitude that have been taken in a way, has been created an impression that Municipality is under impression that they have nothing to do with this case since the complainant originally submitted the alleged documents not before the Thalassery Municipality but before Development Authority. The Municipality cannot be, at any rate, free from the liability until and unless maximum attempts have been discharged to trace out the document. There is no evidence before the Forum to show that there is earnest attempt on the part of Municipality that has been made to find out the relevant document. Hence we are under the impression that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party has to issue a certificate to the effect that the alleged document has been irrecoverably lost during the completion of process of shifting the files and documents from Kannur Development Authority to Thalassery Municipality. Taking into consideration the peculiar situation existing in the case in hand we are not awarding compensation but complainant is entitled for an amount of `1500 as cost. Order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to issue a certificate to the effect that the documents in question i.e. 1682/48 and 849/61 of SRO Thalassery happened to be seen missed irrecoverably during the completion of process of shifting the concerned files and documents from Kannur Development Authority to Thalassery Municipality within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled for an amount of `25000 /- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with interest @8% from the date of filing of the case till payment. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of `1500 (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost of this proceedings. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Copy of the acknowledgement issued by Kannur Development authority A2. Letter dt.9.7.10 issued by OP to Advocate A3. Receipt dt.27.3.03 issued by OP A4. Receipt dt.18.10.06 issued by OP A5. Letter issued by Public Information Officer of OP dt.22.2.10. A6. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A7. Reply notice A8. Copy of the letter dt.27.7.10 sent to OP Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
