KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.300/08 JUDGMENT DATED.24.11.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER Senior Manager,Union Bank of India, Chovva Branch, Kannur. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.R.Kunjukrishnan Potti) Vs. 1. E.V.Rohini Nambiar, W/o N.K.Shaj, MP.II483-A, P.O.Munderi. 2. N.K.Shaj, -- RESPONDENTS S/o Janardana, Melekkandy House, C.S.Railway station, Chovva, Kannur. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Bank in CC.172/06 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to return the title deed and to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. It is the case of the complainants that the first opposite party a lady is a manufacturer and distributor of detergents. She availed an over draft facility at Rs.1 lakh from the appellant for which the second complainant, as a surety her husband deposited the title deed. It is alleged due to the indifferent and indecent attitude of the Senior Manager of the opposite party the first complainant closed the loan account on 14.11.2005 by paying the whole amount. After closing the loan 2nd complainant approached the opposite party to return the document. He was asked to come after some time and then the matter was protracted on some pretext or the other. Subsequently, it was told that the document has been treated as a security for the amount loan under the PMRY scheme availed by the Ist complainant earlier and as the said loan has not been discharged the opposite party has the right to retain the document. It is the contention of the bank that while availing the second loan, the second complainant had agreed to stand surety for both the loans and hence the title deed is deposited as security for the first loan also and hence the same cannot be returned. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A5 and B1 to B9. The Forum has found that it is not disputed that for the loan under PMRY scheme for amounts less than Rs.1 lakh no security is required. It is seen that it is after about one year of the loan under PMRY scheme the first complainant availed the loan of Rs.1 lakh. The same was closed within one year. There is no case that for the loan under PMRY scheme security is required or that the loan instalments are not being remitted regularly. The contention is that the complaints have voluntarily submitted the document as security for the loan under PMRY scheme also. The same cannot be believed. The appellants are not entitled to secure the PMRY loan for which no security is required. On a perusal of the judgment of the Forum, we find that there is no illegality in the same. In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope to admit the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in-limine. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER S/L
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
