By G. Yadunadhan President: The case of the complainant is that complainant had handed over original of title deed Nos. 1538/83 and 1584/83 of SRO, West Hill to the 3rd opposite party for the purpose of availing cash credit facility by the complainant. The cash credit facility was availed by the complainant by creating equitable mortgage and for that purpose the above mentioned title deeds in original were deposited with 3rd opposite party. On 12.5.2003, the 3rd opposite party dishonoured a cheque amounting Rs.25000/- belongs to the complainant, even though there was sufficient fund in the account. Due to the insufficiency of service by the opposite party the complainant prepared to close down the account and therefore expressed their willingness to pay off the entire outstanding and demanded the title deeds. Subsequently, complainant had noticed that the title deeds which were to be kept under safe custody were lost from the 3rd opposite party due to reckless and negligent manner of handling documents. Hence the complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties directing them to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with future interest. Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version stating that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Once the account is classified as non-performing asset the account holder will not be allowed to enjoy the facility thereafter. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Points for consideration: Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation? Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party 3 filed chief affidavit. No oral or documentary evidence were produced by any of the opposite parties. While perusing Ext. A1 document issued on 12.5.2003, it is seen that the account of the complainant declared as non-performing asset on 28.2.2003. Ext. A8 clearly shows the non-performing account of the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to maintain their OD loan without any fail. Opposite party No.3 legally discharged their duty by dishonouring the A1 document. Moreover, opposite party filed a suit against the complainant herein before Subordinate Judges Court at Kozhikode as OS No.31/04 on 21.1.2004 for recovery of money. That was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, who is none other than the opposite party No.3 herein. After receiving that notice even now complainant had not made any effort to close the loan. If the Complainant approached this Forum with clean hands, Forum definitely looked into the deficiency of service against opposite party No.3 regarding the deposit of title deeds. But at this stage complainant is not entitled to get back the original title deeds without remitting the entire amount to opposite party No.3. Under these circumstances, complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties. Therefore we are of the opinion that complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result petition is dismissed without any cost. Pronounced in open Court this the 22nd day of July 2009. Sd/-President Sd/-Member APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1 Photocopy of the cancelled cheque for Rs.25,000/- dated 12.5.03. A2 Photocopy of letter dated12.5.03 from the complainant to opposite party No.3. A3 Photocopy of letter dated 15.5.2003 from 3rd O.P. to complainant. A4 Photocopy of letter dated 14.1.04 from complainant to 3rd opposite party. A5 Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 1.6.04 by the complainant. A6 Photocopy of reply to Ext. A5 lawyer notice. A7 CC-PUB statement from 1.1.99 to 31.12.99. A8 Photocopy of judgment in O.S.No.32/2004. Documents exhibited for the opposite parties: Nil. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1 Subhash, S/o. Jayaram, “Nisha”,Rarichan Road, Kozhikode-6. Witness examined for the opposite parties. None. -/True copy/- Sd/-President (Forwarded/by Order) Senior Superintendent.
......................G Yadunadhan B.A.
......................Jayasree Kallat M.A. | | 
