State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The District Schedule Caste ... vs M.T. Ammu on 29 May, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. 63/2006 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District None) 1. The District Scheduled Caste Development Officer Moolamattom,Idukki BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No 63/2006
JUDGMENT DATED : 29.05.2012
PRESENT
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The District Schedule Caste Development Officer, Idukki, Moolamattom P.O.,
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. Robin Jose, Addl. Govt. Pleader &
Public Prosecutor, Thiruvananthapuram)
Vs
RESPONDENT
M.T. Ammu,
Plappara House, Valiyakandam kara,
Kattappana Village, Idukki District .
. ( Rep. by Adv. Sri. Anilkumar & G.K. Sudheer)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in O.P. No. 71/05 dated 11.07.2005. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant respectively. This appeal prefers from the direction of the Forum below that the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 35,000/- by way of compensation together with Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the petition within 30days of the receipt and copy of the order. In brief, the complainant is having grievances that in connection with the marriage of her daughter she decided to dispose her property to one Mundackal Joseph for a consideration of Rs. 3.25 lakhs. On 5.01.2005 an advance of Rs. 50,000/- was received and agreement was executed. As per the Agreement, the Sale Deed had to be executed on 25.1.2005. So she approached to the opposite party and demanded back the title deed of the property which was entrusted to him as security for the loan. But at the very same time the opposite party has not returned the document. Since original document of the property was not available. The sale deed could not be executed on 25.1.2005 and has agreed upon in the agreement. The advance amount along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation had to be paid to the promisee on 11.3.2005. The alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party the complaint has been filed with claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- and also for a direction to return the original documents.
The opposite party is a government officer appeared and filed his written version. He admitted that the original title deed was entrusted by the complainant in the office and that the loan transaction was closed on 4.1.2005. On verification of the previous records, the original title deed is not seen returned. In the circumstances, for the purpose of executing the release deed, necessary certificate was issued on 28.1.2005 to the complainant. The original Title Deed should not be traced out inspite of thorough search. Efforts being made to trace out the documents. The evidence consisted of the documentary evidence adduced by Ext. P1 to P10. On the side of the opposite party there is no evidence adduced. The Forum below raised 2 points
1) Where as there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so, for what relief to the complainant is entitled?
The Forum below heard in detail and perused the available evidence and found that the complainant is allegedly belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and she sustained loss of Rs. 20,000/- due to the non performance of the agreement. She availed advance for the sale of her property. She suffered somuch difficulties due to the non availability of the original documents. So the opposite party is liable to answer for the loss sustained by the complainant. Besides that the complainant is liable to incur similar loss in future also. The complainant necessarily obtain an attested copy of the document along with an authentication that original document has been lost irrecoverably and after due publication etc for which as expenses will be necessary. Considering that matter the Forum below wants that complainant is entitled to further compensation which they limited to Rs. 10,000/- So the opposite party is directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the complainant also Rs. 500/- as cost of the petition. Hence the appeal.
On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing both the counsel for the appellant and respondent are present and they argued their own cases in detail. The counsel for the appellant argued that the document (Original Title Deed) was already handover to the complainant by the opposite party and the complainant received it. In the circumstances, there is no question of balance of conveyances and further loss and compensation arrived. For this purpose the counsel for the appellant produced a document before this Commission in this appeal stage with a petition. We perused this new document produced before this Commission in this appeal stage. It is seen that this document fabricated later with a criminal intention to commit a crime of cheating and forgery. In our opinion as per serious scrutiny of the document, the contents of the handwriting, signature and various dates are intentionally fabricated by the opposite parties with an aim to deceive the complainant. In the written statement, it is clearly admitted the fact that the original document was not traced out and they taken an attempt to trace out the document. The contents of this document as it is speaking that it is fabricated evidence by the opposite party. The opposite party forgotted that this commission constituted as per the provisions of the consumer Protections Act which passed by the sovereign authority of India; the parliament. It is a parallel judicial system more over this is a fact finding body. The opposite party officer appointed by the government in the District level to protect the interest of the right of the Scheduled Caste /Sheduled Tribe community and to provide all the grants and reliefs provided by the Central and State Government to this weaker section of the society. He is a District level officer who is drawing a very huge amount as salary and other benefits from the money of the people. But he forgot that his appointment was only to protect and care the weaker section of the society. He thought about his own interest only. He fabricated false documents and produced before this State level Commission (State appellate body) and trying to substitute it as an evidence from his part. We perused the entire evidence from both sides and heard both sides in detail. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite party before the Forum below. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is absolutely accordance with the law and evidence. We shocked that our nation become independent about 65 years back. But now also this is the pitiable condition of the depressed classes like Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe and other suffering classes eventhough the Central and State Governments are spending crores of rupees for their welfare and protection. The act of the opposite party, government officer, is nothing but a contempt of the great father of India Mahatmaji . This act is nothing but a deficiency in service and we are seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is as per the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. But the appellant/opposite party committed this mischief and deficiency in service in his personal capacity and he is liable to pay the compensation and costs from his own pocket. We can not allow paying this amount from the public fund of the people. The Apex Court directed that if any public officer who committed personal mischief and deficiency in service, he alone liable to pay the compensation from his own pocket. He did not pay this amount from the public exchequer. This direction given by the Supreme Court in the reported case " Gassiabad Development Authority Vs Balbeer Singh II (2004) CPJ 12(SC) after Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Guptha III(1994) CPJ 7(SC).
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. The opposite party is also directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 35,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- from his own pocket. He did not pay this amount from the public exchequer. He is bound to obey the direction of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned reported cases. We directed the Registrar of this Commission to forward the copy of the Judgment to the Secretary, SC & ST Department, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum for necessary action.
The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. No cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER ST [ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER