O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows. Petitioner for the purpose of constructing a house for himself taken housing materials supplied by the opposite party. The petitioner had taken the loan by pledging the title deed of his property and by executing necessary documents infavour of the opposite party. Petitioner on 24..1..2003 cleared all the dues to the opposite party society. According to the petitioner for clearing the dues the petitioner made agreement for sale of his property. The advance received from the said agreement for sale of the property was used for clearing the dues. After payment of the entire dues the petitioner demanded return of the original title deed deposited with the opposite party. The opposite party assured that title deeds will be returned within 3 months. The petitioner states that since the title deed was not returned, as agreed, the petitioner was forced to refund Rs. 20,000/- to the buyer of the property. So the petitioner<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> prays for an order directing the opposite party to return the documents entrusted by the petitioner. He also prays for compensation in the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. <br /> The opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party contented that the title deeds are deposited not to the opposite party but to the Hudco. The opposite party is only an agent of the Hudco. The opposite party contented that they remitted the entire amount paid by the petitioner to the Hudco and demanded for the release of the title deeds of the petitioner. But the Hudco had not returned the documents inspite of the repeated demands. Some of the persons who availed loan committed default in payment and thus the opposite party was not able to remit proper instalment to the Hudco. So, the he Hudco is in a stand that the title deeds deposited will not be returned before closure of the entire defaulted amounts. So the opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner filed affidavit he averred that for constructing a house in his property he had taken building materials to the tune of Rs. 15337.50 from the opposite party by pledging the title deed of the property. According to the petitioner on 24..1..2003 the petitioner paid the entire dues to the opposite party. The amount was paid<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> by making agreement for sale of his property with one Josekutty Kudumpalliyil, Kuruvanthanam . As advance an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was accepted from the said Josekutty and the dues were cleared by remitting the said advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- . At the time of closure of the loan the opposite party promised the petitioner that they will return the original title deeds of the property within 3 months. But even after elapse of six months the opposite party has not returned the documents as agreed by the opposite party. So according to the petitioner he sustained a loss of Rs. 20,000/-for the breach of contract for sale of his property . Petitioner has produced a copy of the letter issued by the opposite party with regard to deposit of title deed the said document is marked as Ext. A1. The petitioner produced a letter issued by the opposite party to the petitioner the said document is marked as Ext. A3. In Ext. A3 the opposite party promised the petitioner that documents should be returned within 30th August, 2005 but so far not returned the documents as promised. The opposite party has not filed any counter affidavit denying the averment of the petitioner so, only inference that can be drawn is that they are admitting the case of the petitioner. The conduct of the opposite party in not returning the title deeds for a long period even after repayment of entire dues amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on their part . The said conduct of the opposite party claiming as a charitable institute with the only object to help the shelterless poor to make habitable house by giving interest free loan to them seems quite paradoxical. The petitioner has not adduced any positive evidence orelse any documents to prove his case of sale of property with one Josekutty, Kudumpalliyil,<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> <br /> Kuruvanthanam. So thesaid story of agreement for sale of the property is not believable. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs. prayed for. The said act of the opposite party would have definitely caused untold misery hardships and financial loss to the petitioner. Moreover due to the said act of the opposite party, the poor petitioner is unnecessarily dragged before this Forum for getting his grievance redressed for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate even though there was no evidence to show the exact loss sustained to the petitioner considering the whole facts of this case. We are of the view that awarding the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony is not surplus.<br /> In the result, the following order is passed.<br /> The opposite parties are ordered to return the title deeds of the petitioner's property, which the petitioner deposited at the time of availing the loan, they are also ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- is ordered as cost of the proceedings . This order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. If the amount is not paid within time the whole amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till payment.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> pronounced in the open forum on this the 28th day of June, 2008.