DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 08/08/2022
CC/142/2022
Vince Jose
S/o. Joseph.P.K
Puthuparambil veed, Palakkayam Post
Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. A. V. Ravi)
Vs
Federal Bank Limited
Kalladikkode Branch
Palakkad
Represented by its Manager - Opposite party
(By Adv. T. Reena)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
Gist of complainant's pleading is that the opposite party delayed the release of mortgage documents after closure of the loan, thereby losing out an opportunity to sell the property as per the agreement already signed with the buyer. The complainant along with her wife, availed loan from the opposite party and closed it on 29/03/2022. The fund for closing the loan was arranged by signing a sale agreement with one Mr. Ramesh.A.S.Nair for selling the mortgaged property within one month, after getting it released from the opposite party. But the opposite party released the documents only on 10/06/2022 i.e. with a delay of 73 days. Due to this deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, he couldn't sell the property as per the sale agreement signed with the buyer, causing financial problems and mental agony. Hence this complaint seeking a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- apart from cost.
2. Notice was served to the opposite party. They didn't file version with in the statutory period, hence version was rejected.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 & A2 as evidence. Ext. A1 is the copy of the legal notice issued by Adv. A.V.Ravi on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A2 is the reply given by the opposite party through their counsel Adv. K.Madhusoodanan.
4. The grievance as per the Ext. A1 and the complaint pleading is the undue delay caused in releasing the mortgage documents after closing the loan. Since version filed by the opposite party was rejected, we don't know what explanation the opposite party wanted to give for the said delay.
5. However, in their reply to the complainant's legal notice, (Ext. A2) the opposite party is telling an altogether different story. The complainant had availed three loans from the opposite party by creating mortgage on 30/01/2015. Suit was filed with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, for the recovery of the loans and the original title deed was produced before the Tribunal along with the proof affidavit. The loans were subsequently closed by way of Compromise Settlement and the compromise memo duly signed by the complainant and the opposite party was filed with the Tribunal. The opposite party's counsel had been following up the matter with the Tribunal and the documents were handed over to the complainant immediately after receiving it from the Tribunal. Hence, there is no deficiency on their part.
6. As this fact of a case with Debt Recovery Tribunal and the connected incidents has never been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint nor denied in the proof affidavit, it has to be seen as a clever move by the complainant to mislead this Commission, purposefully hiding the very pertinent issues of the case. Further, the complainant has not produced any document to show that there was deliberate attempt from the part of the opposite party to delay the delivery of documents. Hence the complaint is devoid of any merits.
7. As the complainant failed to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite party, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1: Legal notice dated17/06/2022 issued by Adv. A. V. Ravi on behalf of
the complainant to the opposite party.
Ext. A2: Reply to the above legal notice issued by Adv. K. Madhusoodanan
dated 27/06/2022.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
