D.O.F. 27.11.2008

                                                                                  D.O.O. 06.12.2010

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 6^th day of December,  2010

C.C.No.286/2008

Kariyil Balakrishnan,

S/o. Kunhiraman,

Aged 52 years, Cherummal House,

Kara-Peravoor,

Kannur District.                                                   :         Complainant

(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Rajesh)   

1. The Manager,

    Thalassery Primary Co-operative

    Agricultural  Bank, Iritty Branch.

2.  The Secretary,                                                 :         Opposite parties

     Thalassery Primary Co-operative

     Agricultural Bank, Thalassery

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

O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 35,500 as compensation with cost of this proceedings.

          The complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan from 1^st opposite party by mortgaging his 0.50 Acres of land in R.Sy.86/1 in Keezhallur Amsom and Kotheri Desom and for this he had pledged the original assignment certificate issued by Government, possession certificate and encumbrance certificate before 1^st opposite party.  On 30.06.2008 he had paid the entire loan amount including the interest and the 1^st opposite party had issued receipt also for the same.  But at the time the complainant requested to return back the above original documents, the 1^st opposite party instructed to come after two days for receiving the same.  After two days when the complainant contacted 1^st opposite party they instructed again to come after one week and after one week they replied that the original may be either in Peravoor branch or in Thalassery branch.  So the complainant had contacted at the Head office, Thalassery and from there he got information that it is also not there.  Again the complainant contacted 1^st opposite party and they insulted the complainant.  Later on 21.11.2008, they had issued a certificate in their letter pad to the effect that the entire loan file with respect to the loan of the complainant is missing.  The complainant has got an information that his property is also including in the property intended to acquire by Kannur Airport Authority and for receiving the compensation these documents are highly necessary.  Moreover the opposite party is duty bound to return back the entire documents soon after the closing of the loan account.  Moreover the opposite parties insulted the complainant and he had suffered so much of mental as well as physical hardship.  All

these was caused to the complainant due to the deficient service of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both the opposite parties appeared and filed their version contending that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum since he is a member of the Society.  The opposite parties admits that they are not able to return back the documents of the complainant since the files were misplaced at the time of shifting of Iritty Branch to new building.  The same was informed to the complainant at the earlier stage itself and the contentions that the complainant had contacted the opposite parties twenty time for the return of the document is false and made only for the purpose of the case.   The opposite parties had issued a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the documents were misplaced and the same was issued for the purpose of getting compensation from the Airport Authority, Kannur and all other allegations are made only for the purpose of the case.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and on the other hand the bank had issued a certificate in order to help the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3.

Issue No.1 :

          The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum under Section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, since the complainant is a member of the opposite party Bank.  But in Secretary, Thirumugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs.  M. Lalitha, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the complaint filed by a member of Co-operative Society against the Society is maintainable before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by pointing out that such remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was in addition to and not in derogation of the other remedies available.  So we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable before the Forum and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case.

Issues 2 to 4 :

          The complainant’s case is that documents pledged by him before the opposite parties were not returned by opposite parties eventhough he had closed the loan account.  In order to prove his case he has produced Ext.A1 to A3 such as photocopy of the assignment certificate issued by the Government of Kerala, cash receipt issued by opposite party and certificate issued by opposite party to the effect that the certificate is misplaced.  There is no oral as well as documentary evidence on the part of opposite party.  The opposite parties admit that the complainant had availed loan and closed the account after paying entire due.  They further admits that the file of the loan account of the complainant including all the documents produced by the complainant was misplaced by the opposite party at the time of shifting the opposite party branch to a new building.

          The opposite parties contended that the complainant was not in need of the above said documents further because the property is already acquired by the Airport Authority, Kannur.  The complainant also deposed that “]cm-Xn-bnÂs¸« Fsâ ØeT I®qÀ hnam-\-¯m-h-f-¯n\p th­n acquire sNbvXn-«p­v.  AXnsâ hne ]qÀ®-am-bpT In«n-bn-«p­v.”  So it is clear that the complainant was not in need of the above document.  But it is true that the above said property was acquired by the Airport Authority only during 2010.   It is admitted that the complainant has already closed this loan account during 2008 itself and requested for return of documents and it is also admitted that the opposite parties were not able to return the documents after closing the loan account. The opposite parties are duty bound to return the documents after closing the account and it is also true that the complainant had suffered some inconvenience because of non-receipt of his documents.  This was caused due to the deficient service of opposite party for which they are liable to compensate the complainant and we assess ` 2000 as compensation and ` 1000 as cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to pay ` 2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2010.

                               Sd/-                      Sd/-            Sd/-

President              Member      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of the Certificate issued by Collector, dated 19.02.1989.

A2.  Receipt of Bank dated 30.06.2008.

A3.  Certificate given by 1^st O.P. dated 21.11.2008

Exhibits for the opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits for the Court

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for Court

Nil              

/forwarded by order/

                                                              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT