District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing:02/02/2010
CC. No.13/2010
C.Muraleedharan
S/o.Sankunni Nair
Retired Air Force Officer
Pathmalaya
Challi
Near Kurudi Temple
Panamanna South
Ottapalam
Palakkad District. - Complainant
(By Adv.K.R.Kochunarayanan)
Vs
1. Balan
S/o.Achuthan
Thondiyil
Kanniyampuram
Kanniyampuram.P.O
Ottapalam
(By Adv.K.Premkumar)
2. The Secretary
Primary Co-operative Agricultural
Development Bank
Ottapalam
(By Adv.K.Haridas) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Brief case of the complainant:
Complainant is a guarantor to the 1st opposite party for availing a car loan for Rs.1,50,000/- by pledging his title deeds. 2nd opposite party bank has granted the loan. After availing the loan when the 1st opposite party misused the vehicle for illegal purpose, complainant asked the 2nd opposite party to return his title deeds and exonerate him from liability. But opposite party has not complied the request. A complaint was made before the Police and RTO also. Later a complaint was filed before Sub Court, Ottapalam wherein 1st opposite party has filed written statement to the effect that loan was already closed on 16/08/09 and complainant can take back his title deeds. Believing the same complaint was not pressed. Complainant issued two lawyer notices dtd.18/05/09 and 6/10/09 requesting return of title deeds, for which 2nd opposite party replied for the 2nd notice stating that the title deeds was already handed over to the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party has sent a lawyer notice stating all the title deeds are entrusted with his counsel and the complainant can receive it from his counsel.
According to the complainant, non-return of title deeds to him as well as unnecessary delay in return of the same has caused great hardship to the complainant. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to return the title deeds and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
Both opposite parties filed version. Deposit of title deeds of the complainant as guarantor for availing car loan by 1st opposite party is admitted by both parties. According to 1st opposite party he has repaid the entire loan and has taken back all the documents produced before the bank. Later several times 1st opposite party went to the house of the complainant for returning the documents, but complainant was not willing to accept the same. When the complainant filed a complaint before the Police, there also opposite party was willing to return the documents but complainant never accepted the same. 1st opposite party has issued a lawyer notice dt.22/12/09 requesting the complainant to come and receive the documents for which complainant replied stating he is not willing to accept the same. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party.
2nd opposite party filed separate version contending the following.
That the complainant directly has not produced his title deeds before the bank. The entire documents were produced by the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party closed the entire balance on 6/10/09. Hence the loan was closed and the entire documents were returned to 1st opposite party. Further submits that complainant never intimated to 2nd opposite party that the documents shall not be returned to the 1st opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part also.
The Evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A10 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party along with version has produced all the title deeds deposited by the complainant at the time of availing loan.
Now the issues for consideration are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the forum was found in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.1:
Complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties on account of non-return of title deeds to him and the delay caused for return of title deeds pledged as security.
1st opposite party for whom the complainant stood as guarantor submitted that he was always ready and willing to return the documents, but it’s the complainant who was not willing to accept the same.
2nd opposite party submitted that on closure of the loan, the entire documents were returned to 1st opposite party, who has produced the same before the bank and according to them bank is bound to return the same to 1st opposite party alone.
We have gone through the entire evidence on records and heard both parties.
It is an admitted case that complainant is a guarantor of the 1st opposite party for the car loan availed from the 2nd opposite party and title deeds of the complainant has been pledged as security for availing loan.
The main grievance of the complainant is that 2nd opposite party has handed over the title deeds of his property pledged as security for the loan availed by 1st opposite party to 1st opposite party even though complainant has demanded for the same.
As per Ext.B1, last payment towards the loan is seen on 15/05/2009. Account closed and all documents received is seen to be endorsed and signed by the Secretary of the 2nd opposite party bank and the principal borrower 1st opposite party. It is the case of the 2nd opposite party that on 15/05/2009 itself documents were returned. No date as such is endorsed in the acknowledgement in Ext.B1. Further in Ext.A4, the written statement dt.16/08/2009 filed by the principal borrower in the suit filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Sub Court it is stated that “2 mw {]Xn¡pÅ _m[yX IrXyambn Cu {]Xn 2 amkw ap³]v AS¨pXoÀ¯ncn¡p¶Xpw, A\ymb¡mc\v Snbmsâ hlIfpsS B[mcw Xncn¨p hm§mhp¶XpamWv. A\ymb¡mcs\ _p²nap«n¡Wsas¶m, Iãs¸Sp¯Wsas¶m DÅ bmsXmcp Dt±yihpw Cu {]Xn¡nÃ.” This statement leads to the inference that on the said date documents were with the bank. Complainant has further applied for the return of documents before 2nd opposite party on 18/08/2009 (Ext.A6) for which 2nd opposite party has not replied. Further lawyer notice dt.29/09/2009(Ext.A7) is seen to be issued for which 2nd opposite party replied stating that documents were already handed over to 1st opposite party. It is not understood what prevented 2nd opposite party from giving this information to the complainant when he has issued complaint on 19/08/09. There is no concrete evidence before the forum that will go on to show that documents were returned to 1st opposite party on 15/05/2009 itself. It is only on 22/12/2009(Ext.A9) 1st opposite party has issued lawyer notice requesting to take back the documents. If 1st opposite party has received the same on 15/05/2009 itself why he kept silent for about 7 months.
The counsel for the 2nd opposite party while arguing has submitted that there is no specific rules as to whom the pledged documents has to be returned. We are of the view that in the absence of any such rules, it has to be returned to the owner of the documents viz the guarantor/complainant in this case because he will be the most aggrieved person in case of its loss. From the evidence on record we find that relationship between complainant and opposite party has become strained within months after availing of loan itself. Evidence show that the fact is well known to 2nd opposite party. Inspite of that also 2nd opposite party returned the documents to 1st opposite party. We find that both the opposite parties are negligent in their service towards the complainant. Hence we are of the view that complaint be allowed.
Issue No.2:
The first prayer is to return back the documents. We find that 1st opposite party has already produced the whole documents before the forum. Without any justice and sufficient reasons, opposite parties delayed handing over of the documents. Hence complainant is to be adequately compensated.
Hence complaint allowed. 1st and 2nd opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which opposite party shall liable to pay interest for the above amount @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. The documents of complainant produced by 1st opposite party shall be returned to the complainant on application.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of letter dt.08/02/08 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A1(a) - Photocopy of courier consignment note No.1106064251
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of lawyer notice dt.08/02/08 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A3 – Reply notice sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of the written statement given by the 1st opposite party before Sub Court, Ottapalam.
Ext.A5 – Receipt and petition filed by the complainant before Ottapalam Police Station
Ext.A6 – Copy of letter dt.18/08/09 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of lawyer notice dt.29/09/2009 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A8 – Reply sent by 1st opposite party to complainant dt.6/10/09
Ext.A9 – Photocopy of lawyer notice dt.22/12/09 sent by 1st opposite party to complainant
Ext.A10 (Series) – Photocopy of reply notice sent by complainant to 1st opposite party, Acknowledgement card, postal receipt etc.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of ledger
Cost (Allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings
