N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum.
(2.) The complainant has approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party to the effect that even though he has discharged the entire mortgage loan, when he requested for the return of the original document was returned, the same was not complied with immediately. The District Forum has allowed the complaint by holding that even though the complainant has discharged the entire loan as early as on 27.4.2006 and even after issuance of lawyers notice dated 5.5.07 and till the filing of the complaint, the original document was not returned.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the documents were lying in the Head Office and the complainant has not chosen to implead the Head Office as one of the parties and as if there is no deficiency of service. We do not accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. Even otherwise, the District Forum has passed an order by adducing sufficient reasons. It is seen from the records that even though during the pendency of the complaint which was finally disposed on 3.4.08, the opposite party/appellant has not chosen to return the original document. It appears that due to the default committed by some employee attached in the opposite partys office or in the Head Office, enormous delay took place in returning the original documents. While dismissing the above appeal, Liberty is given to the Head Office or the opposite party to initiate such action as against the concerned officials who arel held responsible in causing the delay for returning the original documents.;