KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.217/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 25.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.286/2013 of the DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. R. Krishnappan Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the 1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 286/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short ‘the District Commission’).  The complainant before the District Commission is the 1^st respondent herein.

          2.       The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the appellant for agricultural purpose by pledging his property.  The complainant could not repay the entire loan amount because of financial crisis owing to the loss of crops and fall in agriculture price.  Therefore, the complainant approached the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission for the redressal of his grievance.  The Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission, as per order dated 24.07.2008, directed the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the appellant, waiving the balance amount.  The complainant paid the said amount to the appellant.  However, the appellant did not return the title deed and other documents submitted by the complainant at the time of availing the loan and in the said circumstances, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

          3.       The 1^st opposite party/appellant filed written version admitting the availing of loan.  The 1^st opposite party further admitted that the matter was settled before the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission. The 1^st opposite party further admitted that the complainant had already paid the amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the appellant as ordered by the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

          4.       The 2^nd opposite party did not file any version.

          5.       Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 series were marked for the complainant.  Exhibits R1 and R2 were marked for the opposite parties.

          6.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the appellant to return the title deed of the property of the complainant.  It was further directed by the District Commission to the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.3,500/-(Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

          7.       Heard.  Perused the records.

          8.       It is not disputed that the complainant availed a loan from the appellant for agricultural purpose by pledging his property. It is also not disputed that at the time of availing the loan, the complainant had entrusted his title deed with the appellant.  It is borne out from Exhibit R1 that the matter was taken up before the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission and the Debt Relief Commission as per Exhibit R1 order directed the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the appellant, waiving the balance amount.  It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the appellant as ordered by the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission. 

          9.       The grievance of the complainant is that even after complying with the direction in Exhibit R1, the appellant did not return the title deed.  The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the title deed is still with the appellant.  Since the complainant had complied with the direction in Exhibit R1, the appellant ought to have returned the title deed to the complainant.  Since the appellant did not return the title deed to the complainant even after receiving the payment of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as ordered in Exhibit R1, there can be no doubt that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this regard. 

          10.     The District Commission directed the appellant to return the title deed of the property as the complainant had already complied with Exhibit R1 order.  The District Commission had ordered only a costs of Rs.3,500/-(Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only), which  does not appear to be disproportionate or harsh calling for interference by this Commission.

11.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.

          In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstance of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.

SL