DOF.15.11.2005

DOO. .2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan     :  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari  :  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy                :  Member

Dated this, the     day of   2011

CC.289/2005

 Thottathil Pathrose,

 Chavasseri Amsom, Uliyil Desom,

 P.O.Uliyil.                                                   Complainant

 (Rep. by Adv.V.K.George)

1. Manager,

    Thalassery Primary Agricultural

    Development Bank,

    Iritty Branch,

    Iritty.

         (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ramachandran)

2.     Secretary,

     Thalassery Primary Agricultural

     Development Bank,

     Thalassery.

       (Rep. by Adv.B.P.Saseendran)                  Opposite parties   

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `1, 00,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is an A class member of Thalassery PrimaryAgricultural Development Bank. He has a property 1 acre 20 cents in R.S 58 of Chavassery Amsom Desom. He took loan on the security of this property. The entire liability discharged by the complainant. But at the time of preparing release deed, the Gahan number was written 372/96 instead of 372/1993 and the schedule Thalassery Taluk, Payam Amsom Edakkanan Desom RS.3/113 Kalashaparambil Kizhake Bhagam Chalil Orukandan Parambu Thakkukalum Koodiyathil Padinhchrubhagam Paramba 2 acre 21 cent was written instead of Thalassery Taluk Chavassery Amsom Uliyil Desam in RS 58 Kandangodkad Parambil Thekkubagam Paramba 1 acre 20 cent. The Gahan number R.S. Number, Village etc. were written incorrect. Though complainant had  prepared correctly and entrusted opposite parties they were not ready to correct it or to do the needful. Incorrect contents happened to be included in the Gahan as a result of opposite parties’ negligence. Though complainant approached opposite party several occasions they wee not ready to correct the mistake happened, which caused great mental agony. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay the loss sustained by the complainant. Since there was mistake in the Gahan he could not take loan   even if he has approached several banks. So he was compelled to avail money from private parties giving high rate of interest. This has made a loss of more than one lakh rupees. Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties appeared and filed version contending as follows: The complainant itself would show that the Gahan number 372/1993 instead of 372/1996 had been written in release deed by the direction of complainant himself. Since it was prepared by complainant himself opposite party is not responsible for the mistake. The allegation that complainant had approached opposite party to make correction and opposite party was not ready to so, is only a concocted story. It is not with the knowledge of opposite party whether he has approached any bank or not for the loan in connection with the marriage of his daughter. There is no negligence or any fault on the part of opposite party. Opposite party is ready to co-operate with complainant in getting the release deed corrected, in case complainant takes initiative and necessary preparation for the same. There is no negligence on the part of  opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5. No evidence adduced on the part of opposite party.

Issues 1 to 3

          The main case of the complainant is that opposite party did not made necessary correction in the release deed even though he has prepared correction of the mistake and entrusted the same with opposite party. Opposite party on the other hand contended that complainant himself is responsible for committing the error and thus opposite party is not liable for any loss. However, opposite party has expressed their willingness to co-operate with the complainant in case he is ready to take initiative for necessary preparation to get the deed corrected.

          Complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the complaint. He has adduced evidence by way of affidavit that “ Rm³ Xs¶ icn-bmb coXn-bn Hgn-ap-dn-bm-[m-cT X¿m-dm¡n sIm­p-t]m-sb-¦n-epT FXnÀI-£n-IÄ sXäp-Xn-cp-¯mt\m icn-bmb coXn-bn Hgn-ap-dn-sN-bvXp-X-cmt\m Iq«m-¡n-bn-Ã.” Ext.A1 is the release deed. Release deed reveals the above said error. It is seen prepared by V.Prabhakaran and written by P.Saraswathi. Any how the above mentioned error crept in the document.Ext.A2 notice was sent by complainant demanding compensation.  Opposite party in his version contended that “ ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ Xs¶ FgpXn X¿m-dm-¡nb Xsâ Xs¶ hkvXp-hnsâ hnh-c-W-T-sX-ämbn tNÀ¯n-cn-¡p-¶-Xnsâ D¯-c-hm-Zn-X-zT FXnÀI-£n-I-fpsS t]cn D¶-bn-¡p-¶Xp bpàn-k-l-aÔ. Complainant did not deny these facts in his chief affidavit. That means it is complainant himself responsible for inclusion of this wrong facts. In the cross examination complainant deposed that “ Ext.A1 tcJ Registrar office sIm­p-sIm-Sp-¯Xp Rm\mWv”. He has also deposed that Ext.A1X¿m-dm-¡n-bXp Fsâ  \nÀt±-i-{]-Im-c-T-F-gp-¯p-Im-c-\m-Wv. Fgp-Xn-bXp kc-k-z-Xn.-sI.-]n.-bmWv . Complainant also deposed that “ Ccn-«n-bn \n¶p-X-¶n-«p-ff t\m«v  {]Im-c-amWv Klm³ X¿m-dm-¡n-b-Xp. Ext.A3 A\p-k-cn-¨mWv Klm³ X¿m-dm-¡n-bXp”. Ext.A3 is the note written by the Secretary Iritty branch. It is specifically written as below

             sa¼À \¼À    þ   23172

            Klm³ \¼À    þ  372/1993

            dn.-k.58/         –  1 tF-¡À 20 skâv

          In the complaint his pleading is that  he is the owner of the property 1 acre 20 cents in RS.58 of Chavassery Amsom Desom.Ext.A3 shows  RS.No.58 and Extend of property 1 acre 20 cents and Gahan No.372/1993. The evidence shows that the information given in the above note is correct. If the preparation is being done on the basis of Ext.A3 there is no scope for the alleged error. The evidence of complainant that “ Fsâ \nÀt±-i-{]-Im-c-amWv Ext.A1 X¿m-dm-¡n-bXp” makes to ascertain that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party as far as the error crept in the document.

          Complainant however did not substantiate his claim nor has he been able to convince the Forum that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is not entitled for any relief. The issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

               Sd/-                    Sd/-                       Sd/-

          President                Member                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1.Incorrectly written   release deed dt.8.3.04.

A2.Kudikkada certificate0

 A3.Copy of the notice sent by 1^st OP to 2^nd OP

 A4.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A5.Reply notice

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                  /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.