KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.303/00 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/8/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Branch Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank, Edayannur Branch, P.O.Edayannur : APPELLANTS 2. The General Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank, Head office, P.B.No.59, Bank Road, Kannur (By Adv.M/s.M.P.R.Nair & Devan Ramachandran) Vs K.Vijayan, S/o.Kunhambu, : RESPONDENT Erinhiparambath House, Kanad, P.O.Edayannur. (By Adv.R.Surendran&K.Lakshminarayanan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /North Malabar Gramin Bank that are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant and also to pay Rs.250/ as costs vide order in OP No.394/96 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had applied for loan from the opposite parties for starting a flour mill under self employment scheme for purchasing machineries and working capital. He had submitted title deeds of himself and that of one Sajeevan as collateral security for creating equitable mortgage. As directed by the opposite parties their legal advisor Advocate P.K.Ramesh did the scrutiny for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.500/-. The complainant was also compelled to pay the amount due to the agricultural loan of M.V. Narayanan Nambiar amounting to Rs.5,700/- for which the complainant was a guarantor. Subsequently the Branch Manager of the opposite party asked for a non-liability affidavit from the assignor of the property of the complainant and also a certificate from the revenue authorities mentioning that no patta was issued to the property of Sajeevan. The above documents were not produced. The above documents are not required in view of the opinion of the legal advisor. It is his contention that he would have approached some other financial institution for the above loan. He was sought for a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. 3. On the other hand, the opposite parties/appellants have contented that the loan application was rejected as the required documents were not produced. It is admitted that the legal advisor had advised for accepting the title deed of one cent of property in the name of the complainant and 46 cents in the name of Sajeevan provided that the complainant produces a notary attested non-liability affidavit from the predecessor of the complainant and a certificate from the revenue department stating that no patta was issued to Sajeevan. The above was sought as the complainant has not produced the original partition deed of his predecessor. The property purchased by Sajeevan is a property surrendered as excess land to the Government. The said land was originally assigned to one Keloth Omana. As per Land Assignment Rules, Government can assign lands obtained as excess land only to landless agricultural labourers by issuing patta. As Sajeevan has not produced patta along with the assignment deed the complainant was directed to produce a certificate from the revenue authorities stating that no patta has been issued to Sajeevan. It is further pointed out the bank is not bound as such even by the opinion of the legal advisor and that it has discretion to consider the sufficiency of the security. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1, Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B8. 5. The crux of the matter is whether an applicant for loan has got a right to have the loan sanctioned. On a consideration of the evidence adduced it would not appear that the appellants have insisted for any documents which does not pertain to the sufficiency of the security. What has been asked is only the affidavit of the predecessor from whom one cent of land has been partitioned in favour of the complainant. This was on account of the fact that the original title deed could not be produced. With respect the property of Sajeevan to whom patta has not been issued and as the land was purchased from the allottee of the surplus land and as the Land Assignment Rules provide for issuance of patta to the allottee the certificate from the revenue authorities that patta has not been issued to Sajeevan was directed to be produced. We find that the Forum was rather concerned about the fee of Rs.500/- paid to the legal advisor. The above amount cannot be said to be exorbitant. In the circumstances we find that the findings of the Forum directing the appellants to pay compensation cannot be justified. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
