CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

     Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                       Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.196/10

                                                  Tuesday the 2^nd day of August, 2011

 

Petitioner                                                          : E.D. Joseph,

                                                                           Eazhakunnel,

                                                                           Kolladu PO

                                                                          (Adv Thomas Kachiramattam)

 

                                                                  Vs.

Opposite party                                               : ICICI Bank Ltd., Kottayam

                                                                         Branch represented by the

                                                                         Branch Manager

                                                                         (Adv. D. Zaibo)

 

 

 

            The case of the petitioner, filed on 31/7/10, is as follows.

            Petitioner was a guarantor to the loan availed by Sri. Joy Thomas, Chithira, Kozha, Kuravilangad from Lord Krishna Bank, Kottayam Branch subsequently said Lord Krishna bank merged with the opposite party. Loan account of Sri. Joy Thomas was closed on 12/12/04. Thereafter petitioner approached the opposite party for getting the original title deeds of the property, for availing a loan, for starting a business. But opposite party had not cared to return documents to the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so he prays for a direction to opposite party to return the original title deeds along with compensation and costs.

            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act. Petitioner was only a guarantor to a loan availed by one Joy Thomas. Further more no consideration has been received from the petitioner for any availed service. The loan availed by Joy Thomas was closed by him on 29/12/04 and the documents were available for return. Documents were return on receipt of a NOC from the customer. Opposite party being a bailee is duty bound and responsible for the custody of the documents. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party prays for dismissal of petition with their costs.

i)                    Whether the petition is not maintainable or not?

ii)                   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

iii)                 Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Exts A1 to A6 series document on the side of the petitioner.

            According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as per Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, so the petition is not maintainable. Admittedly petitioner was a guarantor to the loan availed by Joy Thomas. In our view by standing as a guarantor to the Joy Thomas petitioner crept into the shoe of the borrower while the borrower become a defaulter in remitting the loan amount. So in our view the petitioner can be considered as a beneficiary to the service availed by the opposite party by promising to pay consideration for the availed service to borrower. So in our view petitioner is a ‘consumer’ or else petitioner can be considered as a ‘beneficiary’ of service availed with the approval of the real consumer. So point no.1 is found accordingly and the petition is maintainable before this Fora.

            The petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not returning documents entrusted to the opposite party while sanctioning the loan. Opposite party’s definite case is that they are ready to return the document on production of a No objection consent letter from the customer of the opposite party. Being a bailee opposite party is duty bound and responsible for the custody of the documents. In our view the stand taken by the opposite party will not amount to deficiency in service. But admittedly the petitioner is a guarantor and he mortgaged the property owned by him to the opposite party. Admittedly the loan transaction was closed by paying entire amount. So, keeping the documents of the petitioner with the opposite party is not fair and the same is to be returned. Point no.2 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1, and 2 petition is allowed in part.

 Opposite party is directed to return the original title deeds and other documents, belongs to the petitioner, entrusted with the opposite party in connection with the loan availed by Joy Thomas on acknowledgement of receipt of the same. Considering the fact

 

 

 

and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered. The order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order.

 

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 2^nd day of August, 2011.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-    

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-                

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-                

 

 

Ext.A1-is copy of the order Hon’ble High Court dtd 11/1/02

Ext.A2-copy of letter dtd 28/12/04 issued by ICICI Bank to Joy Thomas

Ext.A3-Copy of DD dated 19/12/04

Ext.A4-Copy of Layer’s notice dtd 2/7/09

Ext.A5series postal receipts

Ext.A6 series A.D cards

Nil