By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

1.         The complainant approached the opposite party for an agricultural loan of Rs.5 lakh in the year 2007 and filed an application. As per the instruction of the manager of the bank the complainant produced the original document No. 6017/86 of SRO Nilambur along with original patta and tax receipt for the year 2007 to 2008.  The complainant also produced sketch, plan, encumbrance certificate and possession certificate. The incident was in the year 2007 September.  Accordingly the opposite party allowed his application and sanctioned loan of Rs.5 lakh. The complainant   furnished the property as equitable mortgage and the same was endorsed in the pass book.

2.         But the complainant was not need of loan and so he did not accept loan amount but requested release of all the documents from the bank.  But the bank advised not to cancel the loan but it will be useful for him at any time and it can be availed without any process in future.  It was also   said to him that he can take back all the documents after cancelling mortgage at any time.  Then the complainant approached the opposite party during the year 2017 January 31^st for realizing the sanctioned loan.  But that time the opposite party informed the complainant that they are not able to issue the loan and the documents furnished during 2007 is not available in the bank and on searching the original documents it will be allowed within 6 months, the opposite party assured.  Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for the documents but the opposite party did not issue the documents and not availed the loan.   Mean while on 29/10/2018 the complainant approached opposite party for the documents and at that time it was said to him the documents are stands lost from the opposite party.  The complainant submit that the act of the opposite party caused much loss in all respect.  The opposite party is liable to release the documents and the failure on the part of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service.  Hence the prayer of the complainant is to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation on account of  deficiency in service and thereby cause inconvenience  and hardship to the complainant along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

3.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.

4.         The opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint. The opposite party specifically denied the averment in the complaint that the complainant approached the opposite party for an agricultural loan of Rs.5 lakh during the year 2007 for Rs.5 lakh. The opposite party submitted that opposite party did not approach for the loan and no such an application was filed. The opposite party denied the contention  that the complainant   submitted  original document of  6017/1986 of SRO Nilambur and the  original  patta of ,original tax receipt , sketch , plan, encumbrance certificate, possession certificate  etc  to the manager .  The opposite party submitted that the complainant never entrusted such documents to the opposite party. The opposite party further denied the allegation that the property was givne to the bank as equitable mortgage   and submitted that no loan was passed in favour of the complainant and so no equitable mortgage was executed.  The opposite party denied the averment that the details were endorsed in the passbook of the complainant. The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant was not in need of money, sanctioned loan was not required for him, approached the opposite party for the documents but advised not to cancel the loan and can be availed at any time when it is required without any further process etc .  It is also denied the allegations the documents can be obtained after cancelling mortgage at any time.  It is specifically contended that no loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and no mortgage was executed.  It is further contended that  the complainant   did not approach the opposite party during 2017 January 31^st  requesting sanctioned loan  and  reveal to the complainant  the documents are not available  which can be traced within 6 months  and thereafter loan can be allowed etc .  It is submitted all the averments are cooked up for filing this complaint.  The complainant did not approach the opposite party on 29/10/2018 as stated in the complaint. 

5.         The opposite party  contended that  the complainant  submission is  that  he approached the opposite party for the loan during the year 2007 and still this time that is 2019  12 years elapse .   The documents on the complainant might have lost due to lack of care and caution from the side of complainant and for that on an experimental basis the complainant filed this complaint stating baseless allegations. Hence there is no basis for the contention that he sustained mental and physical and inconvenience and hardship. There is no defective or default negligence deficiency in service short coming from the part of the opposite party.  There is no cause of action against the opposite party. The opposite party is not at all liable for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant.  The opposite party is liable ot pay any compensation to the complainant.  Hence the complainant is liable to pay cost to the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.         The complainant and opposite party field affidavit and documents.   The document on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1.   Ext. A1 is savings account pass book of the complainant.  The opposite party filed as separate affidavit and produced one document which is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is information furnished by Kurubalamkode village office under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 28/02/2023.

7.         Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-   

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and cost .

8.         Point No.1 and 2

The case of the complainant is that he approached the   opposite party for an agricultural loan during the year 2007 and he deposited his original title deed No. 6017/86 SRO Nilambur along with certain other documents. The complainant submitted that the opposite party sanctioned the loan but the complainant was not required to utilize the loan amount and so approached the opposite party to get back the documents. The submission of the complainant is that the bank officials  instructed him  not to  get back the documents  but to retain in the bank which will be helpful for the complainant  to avail the  sanctioned loan  at any  time in future without any further processes . Hence he did not received the document from the bank. Later after years the complainant approached the bank   for availing the loan from the bank and then it was revealed the documents stands lost from the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached the consumer Forum seeking compensation and cost from the side of opposite party.

9.         The opposite party submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite party for the loan and no documents were furnished with the opposite party. There is 12 years delay in claiming the release of documents has allegedly deposited before the opposite party. 

10.       The opposite party filed an affidavit stating that  the endorsement in the pass book “EM ചെയ്തു  “ his manipulated and endorsed there in  the pass book it is submitted that there is no authentication for the same and the account of the complainant is dormant one . It is also alleged in the affidavit the document of the complainant is not true one   but manipulated one.  We have gone the endorsements in the Ext. A1 document it appears there are so many endorsement in the passbook without any authenticity. Though the pass book is issued by the opposite party there is no authenticity for the various endorsements in the Ext. A1 document. It can be seen that the complainant allegedly deposited his valuable documents with the opposite party in the year 2007 and thereafter he approached the opposite party for the same after elapse of more than 10 years.  The delay caused from the part of complainant cannot be justified. There is lack of care and caution from the side of complainant itself in the matter of grievance of the complainant.  The document produced Ext. A1 alone do not substantiate the contention of the complainant. Due to want of satisfactory evidence from the side of complainant the Commission cannot direct  the opposite party to  pay compensation on account of loss of documents as alleged by the complainant.  The Commission cannot arrive a conclusion  that the complainant  deposited the   valuable documents  before  the opposite party  and which  stands lost  from the side of the opposite party . Hence we dismiss this complaint with above observation.

Dated this 30^th  day of  June, 2023.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1

Ext.A1: Savings account pass book of the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 

Ext.B1: Information furnished by Kurubalamkode village office under Right to

           Information Act, 2005 dated 28/02/2023.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH