KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 551/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 21..3..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

The Secretary                                              : APPELLANT

Balagram Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd.No.I-150

Balagram Branch, Balagram.P.O.

Idukki District.

(By Adv.Narayan.R)

               VS.

1. Balakrishna Pillai,                                     : RESPONDENTS

    S/o Madhavan Pillai,

    Attupurathu House,

    Sanniyasioda.P.O.,

    Idukki District.

2. Girijakumari Amma,

    W/o Balakrishna Pillai,

    Attupurathu House, Sanniyasioda.P.O.,

    Idukki District.

ORDER

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Co-operative Bank in CC.90/2010 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellants are under orders to return the title deed of the complainants/husband and wife and also to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with interest at 12% if the amount is not paid within one month.

          2. The matter is with respect to retention of the title deeds of the complainant and his wife who had deposited the same for availing loan for  a sum of Rs.15,000/-.  It is the  case of the complainant that  he remitted the loan amount with interest  on 6.3.2010.  The opposite parties have refused to return the documents on the ground that the 1^st complainant was a surety to one Ushakumari who had availed a loan of Rs.5000/-.  In fact, Mr.Gopalakrishnan Nair the former President of the opposite party had availed a loan of Rs.5000/- the name of his labourers namely Ushakumari and Sathyanesan in the year 2000. The opposite party did not initiate any steps against the loanees in time and  it is a time barred debt.

          3. The case of the opposite parties is that the loan provided to Ushakumari is not closed till date and the total dues would work out to Rs.16,199/-.  Ushakumai is no more.  Her husband Sathyanesan is the other surety.  The allegation that the President of the Bank availed the loan in the name of Ushakumari has not been denied.  In the version filed it is stated that  the ARC proceedings have already been initiated before the Asst.Registrar of C-operative Societies in ARC No.819/2010.  It is also mentioned that the  complainant never filed  application for getting the title deed.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and DW1; Exts.P1 to P7 and Exts.R1 to R9.

          5. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the complainant is exercising  general lien as provided in Section 171 of contract Act.  It was also pointed out by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that in any case the 2^nd complainant was not a surety to the loan of Ushakumari and that one of the documents deposited with the opposite parties is a title deed with respect to the 2^nd complainant.  Evidently there is no justification for retaining the title deed of the 2^nd complainant.

          6. It is submitted that the loan repayment period  of Ushakumari expired in 2002.            Evidently the opposite parties have  not initiated any steps  even after filing of the present complaint  in April 2010.  Evidently the remedies available to the opposite parties against the sureties of Ushakumari is barred by limitation.  In the circumstances we find that there is no justification in retaining the title deeds of the complainants.  Hence the order of the Forum is sustained.  Appeal is dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum alongwith the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                      : MEMBER

ps