State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Secretary , Maravar Street, ... vs B. Rajan , Rameswaram Town on 4 November, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.530/2007 (Against order in O.P.NO.13/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Ramanathapuram) DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 The Secretary MDA. HSG.77, Rameswaram Taluk Co-op Housing Society Ltd., Maravar Street, Rameswaram Appellant/ Opposite party Vs. B. Rajan S/o. Balu Thevr Gandhi Nagar Rameswaram Town Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,52,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony, expenses and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.9.2007 in CC. No.13/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing today. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel for the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court: Counsel for the appellant/Opposite party: Mr. A.V. Arun, Advocate Respondent/ Complainant: Called absent M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court) 1.
The opposite party, who suffered an adverse order, in the hands of the District Forum, Ramanathapuram, in O.P.No.13/2005 dt.21.9.2007, is the appellant.
2. The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, knocked the doors of the District Forum, claiming total sum of Rs.1,52,000/-, as compensation, leveling deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, which caused mental agony etc., to him, for which he is entitled to compensation on various heads.
3. The opposite party, filing written version, resisted the claim of the complainant, interalia contending, that there was no deficiency of any kind, on their part, as and when they have received the documents in question, from the head office, complaint alone has failed to receive the documents, probably on the ground that already, he has filed the case before the District Forum, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum considering the rival contentions of the parties, and taking into account, as if there was a delay, in not handing over the original documents forthwith, directed the opposite parties to pay only a sum of Rs.3000/-, as compensation, since during the pendency of the case, as submitted, and as recorded by the District Forum also, the opposite party had returned the documents, which were received by the opposite party on 3.6.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has come to this commission.
5. Admittedly, the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.80000/- as loan, from the opposite party/society, on 17.2.99, furnishing documents of title deeds also. It is the common case of the parties, that the entire debt was discharged on 31.12.2004.
In view of the admitted position, that the entire debt was discharged on 31.12.2004, as of right, the complainant is entitled to get back the original documents, which cannot be disputed.
6. In this case, it appears the original documents, furnished by the complainants, were sent to Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, as per the procedure followed in society, and only after the loan has been discharged, the opposite party addressed, the head office for return of the documents, which reached their hands, only on 16.3.2005. Before that, it appears, the complaint was prepared, and filed before the court on 17.3.2005. In view of the fact, the complainant has filed the case, despite information dt.26.3.2005, 27.4.2005 etc., the complainant failed to come and take back the documents, and that is why, after the case has been filed, as said supra, the documents were handed over to the complainant, and the same was acknowledged. Thus it is seen, there is a minimum delay of 2 months, in returning the documents, that too, had happened due to correspondence between the opposite party, and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, which cannot be so described, as deficiency in service, proceeded by negligent act, warranting compensation also.
7. As seen from Ex.A3, after waiting for two months, the complainant has issued a notice on 3.3.2005, requesting to return the documents, but, unfortunately the opposite party failed to reply, even informing that they have addressed higher authorities, for the return of the original documents, and on receipt, they will return to the complainant. This inaction, on the part of the opposite party, should be construed as deficiency in service, which cannot be disputed, though it is ordinary delay. Taking this small delay, we are inclined to reduce the compensation, though we are not willing to set aside the order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation is reduced to Rs.1000/-, instead of Rs.3000/-.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.13/2005 dt.21.9.2007, directing the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.1000/-, as compensation for deficiency in service, with cost of Rs.1000/-, as ordered by the District Forum, rejecting the rest of the claim. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/Open court