DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.74/2009
Jose Scariya, S/o.Scariya, Thannippara House, Karinkayam Post, Mangalam Dam, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.Jacob Mathew)
Vs
Kerala State Housing Board, Palakkad Division, T.B.Road, Palakkad. Rep by the Assistant Secretary. - Opposite party (By Adv.N.N.Praseeda) O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
The complainant has availed a housing loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite party in the year 1997 by mortgaging his property and the original title deed was deposited with the opposite party. On 03/03/08 he paid Rs.3,67,430/- towards closure of loan in one time settlement scheme offered by the opposite party. Complainant submits that he has collected about Rs.3 lakhs from his friends and relatives by promising them to repay after pledging the title deed in some other financial institutions. After closing the loan amount the opposite party has released the mortgage and release deed was registered in favour of the complainant. But the title deed deposited with the opposite party has not been returned to the complainant inspite of repeated demands. On 27-3-08 he made complaints to the higher authorities requesting to return the title deed. On 28-4-08 the complainant
received a letter from the opposite party requesting him to approach the opposite party for receiving the title deed. When he approached the opposite party to receive the deed, the opposite party informed the complainant that the deed was lost and directed him to collect copy of the same from the Registering Authority concerned. Complainant alleges that the above acts of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. He submits that he has suffered mental agony and he could not pay off his debts to his friends and relatives in time and thereby he has suffered a sum of Rs.14,000/-. Hence complainant praying for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.14,000/- as compensation for the interest paid by him and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
Opposite party filed version contending the following. Opposite party admits that they have granted a loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant. But according to opposite party, complainant was irregular in making repayment. Opposite party contends that they sent a letter on 18-12-07 informing the complainant about the one time settlement. But he did not turn up. On 01-03-08 Mr.Alex Scariya, brother of complainant, submitted an application for closing the loan amount. On 01-03-08 the complainant closed the loan by paying Rs.3,13,230/-. On 03-03-08 the mortgage was released and complainant was informed to approach the opposite party after three days for receiving the title deed. But instead of approaching the opposite party the complainant sent a complaint to their higher authority. On 28-4-08 the opposite party sent a letter to complainant demanding him to accept the documents from opposite party. Later opposite party sent the documents to the complainant by registered post which was returned unclaimed. Opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and there is no financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
Both parties filed affidavits. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B8 marked on the side of opposite party.
Issues:- Whether complainant is a consumer? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the reliefs and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issue No.1:
Opposite party has raised a contention at the time of argument that only after payment of the entire loan amount, complainant can be termed as a consumer. Here the complainant has benefited out of the one time settlement programme of the bank and therefore he is not a consumer.
In our view the contention raised by the opposite party will not stand. Complainant has repaid Rs.3,13,230/- as per the one time settlement programme organized by the bank. Customer being the beneficiary of said programme is definitely a consumer.
Issue No.2: The definite case of the complainant is that the original title deed of the property of the complainant was deposited with the opposite party for availing housing loan. After closing the loan, opposite party has not returned the original title deed even though complainant directly approached the opposite party and sent letter complaining non receipt of the same to the concerned officials.
Opposite party on the other hand, contented that they have intimated the complainant for approaching the bank to hand over the title deed along with other document, but the complainant has not turned up. Thereafter all the documents were sent by registered post. Complainant refused to accept the same and hence the same was returned unclaimed.
Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. It is born out from Ext.A2 series, Ext.A3 series and Ext.A5 series that complainant has taken steps for obtaining the original title deed by way of complaints to all the concerned parties. The registered cover which was sent by the opposite party enclosing the title deed to the complainant was produced before the forum. On verification it was found that some pages of the original deed was missing. Opposite party has also produced certified copy of the original. It was also agreed on behalf of the opposite party that at the time of registering the release deed, the title deed was handed over to the complainant and it might have lost from the complainant. This argument cannot be accepted at all. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to verify the same at the time of return of the document after registration of the release deed. Further opposite party has stated that as the complainant has not approached the bank for getting back the documents, it was sent through registered post. That conduct itself raises doubt regarding missing of the pages of the document.
Failure to return the original title deed as such after closure of the loan amounts to deficiency in service. Non availability of the original deed as such will definitely cause mental agony to the complainant. Further the certified copy produced by the opposite party could not be equaled to the original one. There is always chance of doubting the genuineness of the title deed. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service together with an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as
cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010. Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photo copy of Release deed Ext.A2 (Series)– Photo copy of letters sent by complainant to Chairman of opposite party Ext.A3 (Series) - Photo copy of letter sent by complainant to the Minister Ext.A4 (Series) – Invoices Ext.A5 – Photo copy of letters sent by complainant to Chairman of opposite party Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Ext.B1 - Photo copy of letter sent by brother of complainant to opposite party Ext.B2 - Copies of remittance particulars Ext.B3 – Photo copy of letter sent by opposite party to the Sub Registrar, Vadakkenchery Ext.B4 - Photo copy of letter dtd.28.04.08 sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.B5 - Photo copy of letter dtd.29.04.08 sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.B6 – Photo copy of letter dtd.16.06.09 sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.B7 – Unclaimed registered letter sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.B8 – Certified copy of title
Costs (Allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost | 
