KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.76/10

JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.11

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

1.      The Federal Bank,

Reg.Office, Aluva, reptd by its

General Manager.                                     --  APPELLANTS

2.      The Federal Bank Branch Office,                                                            Puramattom, Thiruvalla,

Reptd. by its Manager.

            (By Adv.S.Reghukumar)

                             Vs.

Cherian Eapen,

Cherupalathil Eapens Cottage,                          --  RESPONDENT

Theliyoor, Pallad.

  (By Adv.Anzil Zachariah)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Federal Bank in CC.111/08 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.  The appellants are under orders to return the title deeds submitted   for the loan availed by the complainants and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

                    2. The matter is with respect to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants in not returning the title deeds after issuing the loan closure served to the complainant with respect to the loan availed by the complainant, the son of the complainant and the partnership firm of the complainant.  It is seen that   the parties had agreed on the basis of a compromise to pay the balance amount of Rs.15.50 lakhs.     A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 30.6.06 and Rs.12,00,000/- on 17.3.06, and Rs.1 lakh on 1.7.06 and Rs.50,546/- on 30.11.06 were paid.  According to the bank a sum of Rs.8,809/- is still  due.

                    3. Evidence adduced consisted of PW1, DW1, Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B4.

                    4. We find that as per Ext.A1 dated 30.11.06, the bank has issued a certificate to the complainant that three loan accounts in the name of the complainant, his son and the partnership firm stands closed.  The same is signed on behalf of the Manager of the bank.  It is the contention of the bank that the above  was a mistake.  We find that in view of the amount involved, also the opposite parties/appellants are estopped from claiming further sums from the complainant.

                    5. In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Forum.  All the same, the order of the Forum  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/- is set aside.  In  the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.

                    The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER