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