Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/367

The Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.S.Sumam - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Vijayachandran Nair

12 Aug 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. A/08/367

Secretary
The Branch Manager
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

L.S.Sumam
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
     VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                                 
                                                              APPEAL NO.367/08
                                 JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.09
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
 
1. The Trivandrum Co-operative Agricultural
    and Rural Development Bank Ltd.No.T.170
    Vellanad Branch, Vellanad
    Rep. by its Branch Manager                                   -- APPELLANTS
2. The Trivandrum Co-operative Agricultural and
    Rural Development Bank Ltd.No.170
    H.O.Sangeeth rep by its Secretary.
    (By Adv.C.S.Vijayachandran Nair)
 
                       Vs.
L.S.Sumam, Kalluvakonathu
Vadakkumkara Puthen Veedi,                                       -- RESPONDENT
Uriakode.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
   (By Adv.Sapna Prakash)
                                                JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
            The appellant is the opposite party/Co-operative Bank, that is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards costs and also interest at 9% if the amount is not paid within one month.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the original title deed of her property, which was deposited with the appellant for availing a loan ie; Loan No.74/1995, was not returned as allegedly misplaced. The complainant closed the loan on 29.6.02.
3. The case of the opposite party/appellant is that the document is misplaced and they are ready to give an attested copy of the document.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the opposite parties and Exts.P1 to P7.
5. It is the contention of the appellant that the complainant had agreed to receive the certified copy and the certified copy was issued. I find that nothing evidencing the agreement of the complainant in this regard has been produced. The loss sustained to the complainant is really substantial and the certified copy is not a substitute for the original. 
6. In the circumstances, there is clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The compensation awarded is only reasonable, rather on the lower side. There is no reason to interfere the order of the Forum.
          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
 
                        JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU-- PRESIDENT
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU