KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 127/06

JUDGMENT DATED:  23-12-2009

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.      Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,

          Represented by Chairman,

          Registered Office Bhadratha, Thrissur-20.

2.      Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.,

          Represented by Manager,

          Kottayam Main Branch, Kottayam.

     (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.K. Venugopal & Sri.S. Pradeepkumar)

                        Vs

RESPONDENT

E.P. Thomas, S/o Pailo,

Manalel House, Thiruvarpu Village, Kottayam Taluk,

Kottayam District,

Represented by Power of Attorney Holder M.U. Uthupu, S/o Pailo,

Manalel House, Dallapuram Desom, Ponnani Taluk,

Malappuram District.

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

                        The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 12^th   December 2005 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 293/04.  The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in not returning or releasing the title deed which was deposited by the complainant as security for the loan amounts covered by NCL 548 & 549.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service.  They contended that a sum of Rs. 9,904/- was due to the opposite party under NCL 548/98.  Thus, the opposite party requested for dismissal of the complaint.

          2.      Before the Forum below, P1 to P7 documents were produced from the side of the complainant and R1 to R7 documents were produced from the side of the opposite party.  On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation with costs of Rs. 1,500/-.  Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party KSFE.

          3.      When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for respondent/complainant.  The Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal and he argued for the position that the loan amount due under NCL 548 was discharged only on 23-02-2004 and so the opposite party is justified in retaining the title deed which was deposited by the respondent/complainant by way of security for the loan amount due under NCL 548/98 and NCL 549/98.  Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 12-12-2005 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 293/04.

          4.      The points that arise for consideration are:

1.    Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in not releasing the title deed of the property owned by the respondent/complainant?

2.    Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP No. 293/04?

5.      Point Nos. 1 & 2:  There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant stood as surety for two loan transactions under NCL 548/98 and 549/98.  Admittedly, the loan amount due under NCL 549/98 was discharged on 03-01-2003.  The appellant itself has admitted this fact that the said loan under NCL 549/98 was closed on 03-01-2003.  It is also an admitted fact that the amount due under NCL No. 548/98 was closed on 23-02-2004.  This is also admitted in the present appeal memorandum.  But, the title deed of the property owned by the respondent/complainant was released only on 26-10-2005.  But no reason or explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellant/opposite party for the delay in releasing the title deed.  Admittedly, the entire loan transactions were closed by 23-02-2004.  But the appellant/opposite party took 20 months time to release the title deed.  The aforesaid delay in releasing the title deed would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party.  It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the complaint in OP No. 293/04 was filed by the respondent/complainant in January 2004 and notice in the said complaint was also served on the appellant/opposite party.  It was incumbent upon the opposite party in OP 293/04 to produce the title deed in the said complaint in OP 293/04 immediately on getting the loan closed on 23-02-2004.  But no such method was adopted by the appellant/opposite party.  The officials of Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. were sitting idle very conveniently and comfortably in their office.  The respondent/complainant who happened to be a surety for the loan transaction has been approaching the appellant/opposite party to get the title deed released.  He even approached the CDRF, Thrissur to get the title deed released with compensation.  So, the very approach and attitude of the appellant/opposite party and its officials would make it abundantly clear that they were negligent in performing the duty on their part.  There is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the case of the appellant/opposite party that on 11-03-2004 they issued a letter to the complainant asking him to approach the Branch Manager to get the title deed from the office of KSFE.  No evidence is forthcoming from the side of the appellant/opposite party to substantiate its case that such a letter was issued to the complainant on 11-03-2004.  Had there been such a notice or letter issued to the complainant from the office of KSFE, then definitely there will be dispatch register or other documents evidencing the sending of such letter.  But, no such acceptable evidence is forthcoming from the side of the opposite party KSFE.  Thus, in all respects it can very safely be concluded that the appellant/opposite party was negligent in returning the title deed even after the closure of the loan accounts.  The appellant/opposite party and its officials caused inordinate delay of 20 months in releasing the title deed to the complainant.  So, we have no hesitation to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party (KSFE).

6.      The complainant claimed a total of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation.  It is the case of the complainant that he suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/- because of the forfeiture of the advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the party with whom the complainant entered into sale agreement.  But, there is no acceptable evidence to prove the alleged loss of Rs. 50,000/-.  So, the Forum below cannot be justified in awarding such a huge compensation of Rs. 70,000/-.  There can be no doubt that the respondent/complainant suffered a lot because of the delaying tactics adopted by the appellant/opposite party in releasing the title deed.  In fact, the officials of the appellant/opposite party were enjoying some sort of sadistic pleasure by retaining the title deed even after the discharge of the loan amount due to KSFE.  There can be no doubt about the fact that the appellant suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to the aforesaid attitude adopted by the officials of KSFE.  So, the respondent/complainant has to be compensated adequately.  We are of the view that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- can be considered as just and reasonable compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the respondent/complainant.  The compensation of Rs. 70,000/- ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs. 15,000/-.  The cost of Rs. 1500/- ordered by the Forum below is treated as reasonable and the same is upheld.  These points are answered accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed partly.  The impugned order dated 12-12-2005 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 293/04 is modified.  Thereby the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- with costs of Rs. 1,500/-.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                             M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

Sr.