O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. The complaint is filed for getting compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. The complainant’s wife had submitted original title deed of property No.3177, and some other documents for availing a loan. The records were sent for legal opinion. As there is minor right in the deed, the OP Bank (2) authorities informed the complainant the loan cannot be granted on security of that property. Subsequently the complainant’s wife was under treatment for a long period, and the complainant was unable to go to the Bank for releasing the documents. Later, when the complainant approached the Manager and demanded the documents, the Manager had taken an evasive attitude. The complainant submitted applications before The District Collector and the District Collector sought report. But neither the report was sent nor his title deed and other documents were returned. The complainant sustained financial loss as he could not go for this coolie work to earn livelihood because he was lost several days in enquiry of said documents. The complainant sustained mental agony also. Hence the complainant filed the complaint seeking relief. The opposite parties filed version contenting inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The loan application of complainant’s wife was rejected because the title deed because minor right in the property. If lack to the complainant along with other documents such a defect seen in the title deed it will be returned including in the Register. In this case also the documents were returned to the complainant. No complaint was loadged before the head office. The (3) complaints dated: 15.09.06 and 23.02.2007 are baseless and it was explained to the ADM also. Complaint is filed for getting illegal financial gain and upon the inspiration of the orders passed by the Forum allowing compensation against the financial institutions. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits P1 to P4 marked. From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Heard both sides. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 2. Compensation and cost. Points (1) & (2) Adnultedly by a loan application along with title deed and other documents was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. The complainant’s case is that the documents along with the application were not returned to him. The opposite parties case is that the documents were returned to the complainant after verification at the time of production of the same itself. (4) While examination DW1 admitted that along with the loan application title deed and some other documents like location map etc were also submitted DW1 has stated that ±œ»¡Ã« ó¡¹¢ðÄ® •¼¨· »¡©›ucirc; Atilde;®. From this testimony it is admitted that the title deed was submitted before the Branch Manager at that period. Even though opposite parties claiming that it was returned to the complainant, no evidence submitted to prove that the documents were returned. The learned counsel for opposite party argued that when the application was submitted, at that time itself, it was verified and convinced that there is minor right in the property. The title deed and other documents were returned to the complainant at that time itself. Normally there is no possibility of immediate verification of documents application and other documents in detail at the time of submission of application itself. (5) The learned counsel for opposite parties pointed out that there no chance a situation of loss of any document from OP institution, which cannot be successfully yielded in process by suppression or any other means. This statement means that the opposite party will keep only documents which can be successfully yielded in processing. In our experience this statement is not correct. The genuineness of a document can be ascertained only on verification. The documents produced by a party may or may not be correct. Every documents submitted by a party for a loan is subject to verification. Opposite parties had appointed competent persons like legal experts for verification of such documents. The statement that the documents are verified by the Manager himself suddenly on its submission itself and finding out that the document holding minor right it was returned by the Manager at the same time is unbelievable. DW1, the Senior Manager has taken charge only on 02.06.09. The Manager who was in charge at the time of alleged incident was not examined. The complainant while cross examination put a question to DW1 that ±œ»¡Ã« ó¡ð¢µ¤ ©›¡´¢ …¼¤ œúºÄ›¤öñ¢µ® ±œ»¡Ã·¢ý œúº¢ñ¢´¤¼Ä® …ɡî ? DW1 answered “ »¤ü »¡©›ucirc; œúºÄ›¤öñ¢µ¤ œúºÄ¡Ã® .From this testimony it is clear that the oral evidence adduced by DW1 is here say evidence. (6) The opposite parties denied the statement of complainant that he had lodged complainants to the head office of opposite parties. The complainant did not produce any evidence to prove his statement. But opposite parties admitted that the complainant had lodged two complaints before District Collector and it was received by them for immediate report. Even though opposite parties would state that they have convinced the facts to ADM, Kollam they have not produced anything to show that they had sent a report to the District Collector. If there was no default or deficiency from their part is not known as to why they are reluctant to sent report to the District Collector. For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost. The opposite parties may recover the amount from the Manager at the period of the incident if they think so. (7) The order is to the complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of June 2010. K.Vijayakumaran: Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- / / Forwarded by Order / / Senior Superintendent INDEX List of witness for the complainant PW1 - B.Sukesan List of documents for the complainant P1 - SB Book P2 - Form 03.08.98. P3 - Form 26.07.98. P4 - Identity Card List of witness for the opposite party DW1 - Sasidhara prasad | 
