BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 186/2008 Filed on 18.08.2008 Dated : 31.03.2009 Complainants: Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Vattiyoorkavu-695 013. Babukumar, Elavummoottuvila Veedu, Plavodu, Kodunganoor P.O, Vattiyoorkavu-695 013.
Addl. Complainants:
S. Maniyan Nair, Elavummoottuvila Veedu, Plavodu, Kodunganoor P.O, Vattiyoorkavu-695 013. B. Omanayamma, Elavummoottuvila Veedu, Plavodu, Kodunganoor P.O, Vattiyoorkavu-695 013.
Opposite parties:
The Chief Manager, Kerala Financial Corporation, Branch Office, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 33. The Managing Director, Kerala Financial Corporation, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 33.
This O.P having been heard on 23.03.2009, the Forum on 31.03.2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
The facts of the case are as follows: The 2nd complainant availed a loan from opposite parties, Kerala Financial Corporation, on 09.01.2001 as per loan account No. 120327810/80 by depositing the original document of his family property. The property is in the name of 3rd and 4th complainants, the parents of the 2nd complainant. The 2nd complainant had closed the loan before the due date on the reason that the property pledged was his family property. So there was some problems on that regards in his family. He closed the loan on 16.06.2008 and he demanded the opposite parties to return the documents which were he pledged. But the opposite parties replied hat the original document was lost. As per the complainant the opposite parties are legally bound to return the original document to him. Hence this complaint.
The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed version. In their version they admitted the transactions. They stated that the affected parties are the parents of the 2nd complainant and they have not at all raised any complaint against the opposite parties and they also stated that the 2nd complainant has no locus standi to raise the complaint against them.
The 2nd complainant in this case filed proof affidavit and he has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The opposite parties cross examined the 2nd complainant and submitted that they have no evidence.
Points to be ascertained: Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
The complainants in this case produced 4 documents to prove their case. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the loan closure certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 17.06.2008. Ext. P2 is the certificate issued by the opposite parties that the document is found untraceable inspite of their best effort to trace the same and hence is treated as irrecoverably lost from the opposite parties. Ext. P3 is the copy of notice sent by the 1st complainant Consumer Vigilance Centre to the opposite parties for and on behalf of the 2nd complainant demanding return of original document. Ext. P4 is the reply notice sent by the opposite parties to the 1st complainant informing that they are ready to issue attested copy of the document to the complainant and also gave proper publication for the matter with their own expenses.
In this case the complainants have produced sufficient documents and pleadings to prove their case. The opposite parties also admitted that the original document has been irrecoverably lost from their custody. The opposite parties are also admitted that the complainant had closed the loan. Hence the opposite parties are legally bound to return the documents after closing the loan. In this case the opposite parties have not performed their duty promptly. The misplacement of the document is sufficient proof of their negligence and deficiency in their service.
Original deed of a property is the most valuable one. Everyone knows the importance of the original documents. Now-a-days it is very essential for availing a loan. It is the common procedure to produce the original document of the property proposed for availing loan. Hence the loss of the document has very seriously affected the complainants. The act of the opposite parties had not only caused the complainants to suffer a great deal of mental agony, but also deprived them of their right to use the deed for future transactions. Though the loss cannot be commuted in terms of money, the complainants have to be compensated for the suffering they had to undergo. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate their act. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainants 2 to 4 as compensation for their sufferings due to the loss of the original deed. The opposite parties also shall pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as costs. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall carry the above said amounts till the realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 31st March 2009.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 186/2008 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Babu Kumar. II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of loan closure certificate dated 17.06.2008.
P2 - Copy of certificate dated 28.06.2008 issued to the complainant. P3 - Copy of letter dated 12.07.2008 issued to the opposite party
P4 - Copy of letter dated 28.07.2008 issued by the opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
