Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

         The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant’s son one P.K. Raju who was passed M.S.W and he would like to get a job in Sharja at U.A.E.  He entrusted his original M.S.W Certificate to opposite party for an Embassy attestation. On 13/07/2012 the complainant’s son entrusted the original M.S.W Certificate to opposite party’s office at Thiruvalla.  The complainant’s son paid necessary charges to opposite parties for attestation.  The complainant approached the opposite party’s office on 27/07/2012, 30/07/2012, 01/08/2012, 06/08/2012 and 08/08/2012 for receiving the attested M.S.W Certificate but the opposite parties failed to entrust the said certificate to the complainant.  On 27/08/2012 the opposite party informed the complainant that the original certificate was irrecoverably lost.  The complainant filed a case before Thiruvalla Police Station u/s. 477(A), 420 I.P.C against the opposite party and the said case is registered as Thiruvalla Police station Crime 1337/2012. The said criminal case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla.   According to the complainant though the complainant demanded for the Redressal of his grievances and even after the institution of the above said criminal case the opposite party failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. It is again contented that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant and also liable to take necessary steps to provide duplicate Certificate to the complainant in lieu of the original marks card. The act of the opposite parties are comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and they are liable to the complainant.    It is also contended that this petition is filed before this Forum after the expiry of the limitation period due to the expectation that the grievances can be redressed by the criminal case.  The complainant also requested to condone the delay of filing this case.  Hence this case, for directing to the opposite parties to take steps to issue duplicate certificate of M.S.W, compensation, cost etc., etc.

3. This Forum entertained the petition and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  Opposite parties appeared before this Forum and filed their version as follows:    According to the opposite parties the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that the father of the aggrieved person has no locus-standi to file this complaint against the opposite parties.  The opposite parties admitted the entrustment of the original certificate on 13/07/2012 to opposite parties office at Thiruvalla and the receipt of the service charge etc.   It is further contented that the original certificate was entrusted by the son of the complainant and he who paid required fee for attestation.  The opposite parties denied the continuous enquiry of the complainant as stated in paragraph 6 of the complaint.  It is again contented that the irrecoverable loss of the certificate has informed to the complainant’s son on 15/08/2012 by e-mail and also expressed regret in unequivocal and extended their help to take a duplicate certificate at the earliest.  It is again contented that the complainant approached the first opposite party and demanded an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the compensation for this loss or otherwise threatened  with dire consequences.  According to the opposite parties even if the original certificate of the complainant’s son had been lossed, owing to this lost he has not been sustained any loss or damage as alleged.    The complainant’s son was well placed even before getting the duplicate certificate and he is satisfied with the job.  It is further contented that the certificate was laminated where by the U.A.E Embassy attestation became impossible.  Hence the Arabic Agency was tried to unwrap the certificate which was resulted in destructions.  The opposite party gathered these details as an unofficial explanation received from the Arabic Agency.  According to the opposite parties there is no reason for condoning the delay for the institution of this petition as stated by the complainant.  It is again contented that neither the complainant nor his son sustained any mental agony or sorrow. There is no jurisdiction for the complaint to institute this case before the Forum.   Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss this case with cost to opposite parties.

        4. We perused the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues:

              1. Whether this case is maintainable before this Forum?

      2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency     

           in service against the complainant?

                         3. Regarding relief and cost?

                    5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Ext A1 to A8 also were marked in favour of the complainant.  Ext Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party showing the acceptance of attestation fee dated 13.07.2012.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the Police complaint dated 10.08.2012.  Ext.A3 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party admitting the loss of original certificate dated 16/08/2012.  Ext.A4 is the letter issued by the 1^st opposite party admitting the loss of original Degree certificate dated 27/08/2012.  Ext.A5 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 15/08/2012.  Ext.A6 is the copy of FIR Registered against the complainant before the JFMC, Thiruvalla dated 18/09/2012.  Ext.A7 is the copy of FIS of the complainant of Thiruvalla Police Station dated 18/09/2012.  Ext.A8 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant’s son in favour of the complainant.  On the other side, the opposite party also filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he was examined as DW1.  Ext.B1 to B7 are also marked in favour of the opposite parties.  Ext.B1 is the transaction history.  Ext.B2 is the bill details from Thiruvalla to Ernakulam.  Ext.B3 is the bill details for the period from Ernakulam to New Delhi Embassy.  Ext.B4 is the copy of bill summary.  Ext.B5 is the copy of alert notice.  Ext.B6 is the reply notice dated 16.08.2012, 27.08.2012.  Ext.B7 is the Final Report of Thiruvalla Police Station.   After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.

6. Point No.1: In this case the opposite party has raised a serious contention to the effect that this case is not maintainable before this Forum because there is an inordinate delay for filing the case and also pleaded that this complainant has no locus-standi to file this complaint.  When we appreciate the evidence before us, it is so clear that the complainant’s son entrusted his original certificate M.S.W Marks card to opposite party for Embassy attestation.  The opposite party also admitted this entrustment and also admitted the receipt of the consideration for attestation.  Therefore, we can easily come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and opposite party is a service provider. With regard to in-ordinate delay in filing this complaint, it is true that complainant filed a condonation of delay petition as I.A.92/15 before this Forum.  This Forum has given opportunity to the opposite party to file their objection and we heard the above said I.A and finally on 27/01/2016 this Forum allowed the above said I.A.92/15 in favour of the complainant.  Therefore, Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

7. Point No. 2 & 3:  For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The next main question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainant in this case.  When we appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1, it reveals that the complainant’s son Aju.P.R entrusted his original M.S.W Certificate to the opposite party to get it attested.  It is deposed that in order to obtain a good job at Sharja in U.A.E, his son entrusted the original certificate to opposite party’s office on 17/03/2013 and paid an amount of Rs. 4,500/- as its fees.  This can be proved by Ext. A1 receipt.  PW1 again deposed that on 30/07/2012, 01/08/2012, 06/08/2012 and 08/08/2012, he approached the opposite party’s office for receiving the Embassy attested Degree certificate.  It is to see that the opposite parties in this case, also admitted the entrustment of certificate for attestation.  The next point to be considered is whether the opposite party fulfilled the promise to the complainant and returned the document as Embassy attested?  It is also admitted that the original certificate was either attested by the opposite party or returned to the complainant.  As per Ext. A2, it is to see that the complainant filed a police complaint on 10/08/2012 with regard to this incident before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla and the Police registered a Crime as 1337/2012 u/s. 477(A) and 420 IPC.  This can be proved by Ext.A2, Ext.A6 and A7. It also reveals that even the opposite party is also admitted that the original Degree certificate was irrecoverably lost, and suggested to take a duplicate certificate in lieu of the original certificate.

                   8. In the light of the evidence adduce by the PW1 it is clear that the original M.S.W Marks card of the complainant’s son was lost when it is in the custody of the opposite party.  It is true that the learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties argued that though the original certificate was lost the responsibility is not on their shoulder and same was duly sent to the authorities for the purpose of Embassy attestation.  When we peruse the whole evidence adduced by the opposite party in this case it can be inferred that the opposite party has not succeeded to produce any cogent or conclusive evidence to show that the opposite party sent the complainant’s son’s original M.S.W marks card to the concerned Embassy for its attestation.  We do admit that at the time of examining DW1 in chief he deposed that, “16/07/2012- New Delhi se Embassy-bnte¡v Ernakulath- \n¶v Ab-¨-Xnsâ  bill summary BWv Ext.B4”.   When we examine Ext.B4, it is seen that in serial No.482 to New Delhi - AWB number 13604549630 dated 16/07/2012 is seen.  The weight is 0.50 an amount is 29.95 can also seen.  We do not think that this piece of details are sufficient to prove the contention of the opposite party with regard to the entrustment of his original certificate to the concerned embassy.  Nobody can assume that the said letter contain the original marks card belonged to the complainant’s son.  Except this details no convincing evidence before the Forum to rely the contention of the opposite party.  It is also to see that the opposite party already sent two letters to the complainant as Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 and admitted the loss of the original certificate.  The above said exhibits are also marked as B6 series by the other side.  As per Ext. B7, it is also proved that the Thiruvalla Police filed a final report against the opposite party with regard to this incident.  As per Ext. B7, the police finally charge sheeted u/s. 427 IPC against the opposite party and one another.  It is also admitted that the complainant’s son already obtained the duplicate certificate from the university concerned and he is under employment as per this duplicate certificate.  The complainant in this case filed this petition for directing the opposite party to produce the duplicate certificate in lieu of the original M.S.W certificate, cost, compensation etc.  At present there is no need of considering the first relief sought by the complainant since it becomes infructuas. The next point to be considered is whether the complainant is eligible to get any compensation or any cost from the opposite party.  As we discussed earlier, it is so clear that the original certificate of the complainant’s son was lost due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.  If the opposite party proves that the original certificate in question was entrusted to the Delhi Embassy we do admit that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  As discussed earlier, there is no positive evidence to show that the opposite party entrusted this original certificate to Delhi Embassy for its attestation. When we evaluate the evidence of DW1 in cross-examination he answered. “ lÀPn-¡m-csâ aIsâ ]¡Â \n¶pw  certificate kz-o-I-cn¨Xpw, ]Ww kzo-I-cn-¨Xpw company-¡v th­n-b-sÃ. (A)  AsX.  company-sb {]tX-y-I-ambn I£n tNÀ¯n-«nà F¶ Bt£]w \n§Ä D¶-bn-¨n-«p-t­m? (A) No answer”.  In the light of the above answers it is pertinent to see that the opposite party received the original certificate from PW1’s son and received consideration for the performance of the work.  In version the opposite party raised a serious contention to the effect that this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  When we peruse the above answer of DW1, it can be seen that the said contention is also not sustainable.  As stated earlier, we have to ascertain that whether the opposite parties entrusted the original marks card before the Embassy concerned.  In-cross the DW1 answered, “sIm¨n Hm^o-kn \n¶pw Delhi-se  U.A.E Embassy  Ab¨p sImSp¯p. Bb-Xnsâ Imc-y-§Ä \n§Ä¡v t\cn-«-dn-hpt­m? (A)CÃ.  ]d-ª-dn-bmw. (Q) Fs´-¦nepw tcJ Forum- lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«pt­m? (A) CÔ.  Again he answered “Delhi Embassy- \n¶pw Fs´-¦new tcJ-In-«n-bn-«pt­m?”(A) No answer. Sn Certificate Xncn-¨p-In-«msX h¶-t¸mÄ Fs´-¦nepw \S-]-Sn-IÄ  Blue Dart Iz-dn-bÀ kÀho-kn\v FXnsc kzo-I-cn-¨n-cp-t¶m? (A) CÔ.  (Q) “\n§Ä¡v Snbm³ ]cmXn X¶-Xn\v tijhpw Sn company-¡v FXnsc \S-]Sn kzo-I-cnt¨m? (A)  R§Ä          At\-zjn-¨p,  Embassy-¡v sImSp¯p F¶v Adnªp”.  In another question he answered (Q) “C¡m-cyw BcmWv At\-z-jn-¨-Xv?  (A) Adn-bnÔ. Xm¦Ä sImSp¯ version-   para-14   ]d-ªn-cn-¡p¶ Btcm-]Ww F§s\ In«nb Adn-hmWv?  (A) No answer”.   When we examine the above answers, it can be inferred that the opposite parties has not produced any evidence to show that they entrusted the original certificate to UAE Emphasy, the end of the 14^th Paragraph of the version opposite party stated that the original certificate was in a laminated position and the same was unwrap by the Arabic Agency thereby the original certificate was destructed.  But it is so interesting to see that when the DW3 was examined in cross he answered that, “Aju P.R-sâ certificate laminated AÃm-bn-cp¶p F¶v ]d-bp-¶p. (A) icn-bm-Wv”.  Therefore, the said defence of the opposite party is also seen unsustainable.  The complainants loss of the original certificate is a lost forever and even that lost cannot be calculated in terms of money. DW1 answered in cross, “Hcp AÊ  certificate \jvS-s¸-«m certificate holder-¡v I\¯ \jvS-a-sÃ? (A) AsX”.  On the basis of the above answers of DW1 it is easy to be inferred that the lost of the original certificate was caused in the hands of the opposite parties and that lost is an irreparable and irrecoverable damage to the certificate holder.

                     9. Therefore, it can be presumed that the opposite party committed deficiency in service against the complainant’s son and complainant’s son had lost his M.S.W original certificate permanently.  The said lost is irrecoverable it cannot can be compensated by money.  The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that even though the original M.S.W certificate was lost to the complainant that lost can be redeemed by a duplicate one.  We don’t think that such a stand of the opposite party learned counsel is either sustainable or derive any merit.  Anyhow, we would like to find that the complainant is succeeded to prove his case against the opposite party with regard to the deficiency in service.  When we look into the evidence of this case, it can be inferred that opposite party 1 and 2 are equally and severally liable to the complainant.  Therefore, Point No.2 and Point No.3 are also found in favour of the complainant.

                   10.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order onwards.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest to the complainant.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2016.

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                            (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)                :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : P.K. Raju

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party showing the acceptance of attestation fee dated 13.07.2012. 

A2 :  Copy of the Police complaint dated 10.08.2012. 

A3 :  Letter dated 16/08/2012 issued by the 1^st opposite party admitting the 

        loss of original certificate.

A4 :  Letter dated 27/08/2012 issued by the 1^st opposite party admitting the 

        loss of original Degree certificate.

A5 :  Copy of letter dated 15/08/2012 issued by the complainant to the  

        opposite parties. 

A6 :  Copy of FIR Registered against the complainant before the JFMC,  

        Thiruvalla dated 18/09/2012. 

A7 :  Copy of FIS of the complainant in Thiruvalla Police Station

        dated 18/09/2012. 

A8 :  Power of attorney executed by the complainant’s son in favour of the 

        complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Arun Kumar. G

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Transaction history. 

B2 :  Bill details from Thiruvalla to Ernakulam. 

B3 :  Bill details for the period from Ernakulam to New Delhi Embassy. 

B4 :  Copy of bill summary. 

B5 :  Copy of alert notice. 

B6 :  Reply notice dated 16.08.2012, 27.08.2012. 

B7 :  Final Report of Thiruvalla Police Station. 

                                                                               (By Order)

Copy to:-  (1) P.K.  Raju, Aju Vihar, Vazhappally.P.O,

                    Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District.

2. Regional Head, UAE Exchange & Financial services Ltd.,

           Regional Office, 4^th Floor, Deepa Towers, M.C Road, Thiruvalla.

3. The Branch Manager, UAE Exchange & Financial Service Ltd,

           Branch Office, Illamppallil Building,

           Near HDFC Bank, Thiruvalla.

4. The Stock File.