ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This complaint for getting compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opp.party for purchasing a tipper lorry for that he mortgaged his 20,00,000/- worth property as security. After closing his loan amount the opp.party released his document only after 16 months. The said act of the opp.party is deficiency in service. Hence filed the complaint for getting relief. Opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had availed an IPS loan No.148 for Rs. 5,00,000/- on 30.7.1999 for five years and the loan was over due and not closed on due dates. The statement that the bank officials had forced him to sign in documents the nature of which is unknown to him since he had no Engloish education is absolutely false and hence denied. The complainant had availed an IPS loan No.148 of Rs. 5 lakhs on 30.7.1999 for purchase of a Tipper lorry on mutual co-obligancy/mortgage of properties along withy another party named K. Mathewkutty [IPS 147] for Rs.17 lakhs on the same date for a period of 5 years and three months including a cushion period of three months for purchase of a JCB. The complainant also stood as a guarantor and the said property belonging to him was mortgaged both for his loan as well as the loan disbursed to Mr.K. Mathewkutty on the same date. Both the loan accounts were over due and not closed on due dates. The complainant was highly irregular in remitting the agreed repayment installments and he has not repaid the installments within the loan period as and when it became due. On 17.3.2005 tge cinokaubabt after sekkubg tge Tipper lorry , closed the IPS loan account 148. Thereupon,k the complainant has approached the opp.party for a letter of termination of Hypothecation charge on the vehicle to effect transfer of ownership of the said vehicle to the new purchaser. The loan account of Mr.K. Mathewkutty IPS loan account 147 was under heavy default and became NPA on 31.3.2005 . So Mathewkutty’s loan was recalled. The position of the loan account was communicated to the complainant/guarantor as and when default arose through repeated letters and verbally over phone and at last the fact of recall of the said loan was also informed and demanded the complainant to remit the balnce outstanding in the said accoaunt and also finally issued legal notice to both of them on 15.1.2005, 15.4.2005, 13.7.2005 and under SARFASI Act demanding remittance of the amount outstanding in the said accoaunt but neither of them settled the accounts. At last on 21.7.2006 Mr.K. Mathewkutty settled his defaulted loan account 147 under a compromise which caused huge loss to the bank. On 22.7.06 the opp.party had released the said title deeds of the complainant/guarantor and the complainant accepted the title deeds without any objection Afterwards suppressing those facts the complainant approached this Forum alleging that his documents were not returned to him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The opp.party’s main contention are the complaint is not a consumer and also there is no deficiency in service from the side of opp.party. Since the complainant has availed the service of the opp.party he is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. According to opp.party the complaint also stood as a guarantor and the said property belonging to him was mortgaged both for his loan as well as the loan given to Mr. Mathewkutty on the same date. Evenafter the closing the loan of the complainant, the loan account of Mr. K. Mathewkutty was under heavy default. Mr. Mathewkutty had closed his loan account on 21.7.2006 and the very next day itself the opp.party had released the said title deed of the complainant. Complainant’s contention is that without his permission, he has placed as a guarantor in Mathewkutty’s loan. There is no dispute that the complainant became a guarantor in Mathewkutty’s loan and the property belonging to him was mortgaged both his loan as well as the loan of Mr. Mathewkutty. According to the complainant he knows the said fact only while receiving the notice from the Bank. But Ext. D1 shows that he has knowledge about the said fact. Ext. D1 was prepared on 21.3.2005 and during deposition the complainant PW.1 admits his signature and handwriting in Ext. D1 . Hence the above said contentions of the complainant is not believable. Another point is that according to opp.party on the very next day of closing the loan defaulted amount of Mr. Mathewkutty, they had released the title deed of the complainant. There is no dispute that the defaulted loan of Mathewkutty has been closed on 21.7.2006. Ext. D1 shows that on 22.7.2006 the complainant has received his title deed without any objection. On verifying the exhibits, deposition of the witnesses we are of the view that there is no deficiency in servi9ce on the side of the opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost. Dated this the 27th day of February, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Gheevarghese Mathai PW.2. – Navas List of documents for the complainant P1. – Pass book P2. – Non Liability Certificate P3. – Advocate notice List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – George.P. Xavier List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Copy of Document Register D2. – Letter dated 21.3.2005 send by opp.party D3. – Advocate notice D4. – Copy of notice dated 15.4.05 D5. – Copy of notice dated 13.7.05 D6. - Copy of notice dated 10.4.2006 | 
