KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

COMMON JUDGMENT IN

       APPEAL  NOS.264/10 & 284/10

JUDGMENT DATED: 01-02-2011

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

APPEAL  NO.264/10

The Chief Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd., P.B.No.18,

Hospital Junction,                                               : APPELLANT

Kundara.P.O, Kollam.

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

          Vs.

Mathew Philip,

P.B.No.829, Kowdiar.P.O,                                 : RESPONDENT

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.Sri.A.Abdul Kharim & Sri.Narayan.R)

APPEAL  NO. 284/10

Mathews Philip.P,

P.B.No.829, Kowdiar.P.O,                                 : APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.Sri.A.Abdul Kharim & Sri.Narayan.R)

          Vs.

The Chief Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd., P.B.No.18,

Hospital Junction,                                               : RESPONDENT

Kundara.P.O, Kollam.

COMMON JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants in Appeal.264/2010 are the opposite parties/Federal Bank Ltd. and the appellant in Appeal.284/10 is the complainant in CC.49/08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan from the opposite parties as per the scheme of Financial Assistance to the professionals self-employed.  He has also made 2 deposits in the bank for a sum of Rs.27,600/- and Rs.18,378/-.  He could not repay the loan amount in time and the bank filed OS.418/95 and OS.433/95 before Sub Court, Kollam for realization of the amounts.  The case has been settled out of court vide letter dated:15/5/2006 of the opposite party.  He had also deposited title deeds with respect to 4.96 Ares in Survey No.53 and 5.67 Ares in Survey No.54 of Elampelloor Village, Kundara for creating an equitable mortgage.  The complainant had intended to clear the loan amount by disposing of his aforesaid property but the bank failed to return the original title deeds inspite of clearance of the loan and repeated requests of the complainant.   There were potential buyers to purchase the property at the rate of Rs.3lakhs per cent but the same could not be sold for want of title deeds.  In response to the lawyer notice the bank has informed that the title deeds were lost from their possession.  The complainant has sought for return of the fixed deposits amounts with future interest and also compensation for loss of title deeds limiting the claim of Rs.9.lakhs.

 3.     The opposite parties have filed version admitting the deposit of title deeds towards the loan.  The loan was availed in 1990.   As there was no repayment; the complainant instituted Original Suits before the Sub-Court.  After filing of the suits the complainant approached the bank and after discussion it was decided to close all the accounts and the amounts to be adjusted towards the loan dues.  It is submitted that the title deeds were missing from the custody of the counsel who is no more.  Opposite parties have furnished a certificate dated 28/11/2005 admitting the deposit of title deeds and the loss of the same and also an affidavit in this regard sworn by the Chief Manager of the Bank.  The certified copy of the document was also obtained and given to the complainant.  It is also mentioned that the FD for a sum of Rs.27,600/- was provided as security by the complainant to the KSEB and the KSEB has collected the above amount on 1/7/2002 for the amounts due to the KSEB from the complainant.  The amount of Rs.18,378/- due as per the Aiswarya Account (FD) was adjusted in the loan dues on 7/7/1995 before the filing of the suits.  Hence no amounts vide deposits or interest is due to the complainant.

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P11 and D1to D5.

5.      It is seen that the complainant has raised a contention that he is entitled to the maturity value of Rs.27,600/- as per the fixed deposit.  The Forum has noted that the same was furnished as security to the KSEB and the KSEB has collected the amount towards the dues from the complainant.  All the same the complainant herein has contented that Ext.D1, the security deposit receipt and the fixed deposit receipt for Rs.27,600/- are two separate deposits and that Ext.D1, the security deposit receipt for Rs.27,600/- is a separate one and that he has another FD for the same amount.  We find that the same contention has not been raised before the Forum or considered by the Forum.  It is contended that the complainant has raised the contention in the argument notes.  We find that such a contention has not been mentioned in the complaint at all.  Further we find that no document or even the photocopy of the above FD for Rs.27,600/- has been produced.  Further it was brought out that it is having the same date and the same number as in Ext.D1 security deposit receipt.  Ext.P1 intimation from the opposite party with respect to the FDR contains the same number.  The complainant has not furnished the number of the alleged other fixed deposit receipt for Rs.27,600/-.  The complainant is an Engineer by profession and is running a business and hence it is unlikely that he would not have kept any records with respect to other fixed deposit which is for the same amount.  In the circumstances we find that the above contention appears not true at all.  The same is rejected.

6.      The complainant in the appeal filed has sought for enhancement of the amount of compensation whereas the opposite party in the appeal filed has alleged that the above amount awarded is excessive.  We find that the conduct of the complainant throughout as a customer to the bank is totally unsatisfactory.  The loan was availed in 1990 and for want of repayment suits were filed in 1995 and it is after about 10 years that the matter has been settled in 2006 as evident from Ext.P3 letter dated:15/5/2006.  Further the complainant has not adduced any evidence apart from his interested testimony to establish that there was potential buyers for a sum of Rs.3.lakhs per cent and that the property could not be sold for want of original title deeds.  In the circumstances it appears that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive.  Hence the order of the Forum in this regard is modified as follows:-

7.      The complainant will be entitled for a sum of 25,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of settlement of the loan account ie, 15/5/2006. The complainant will also be entitled for cost of Rs.5000/-.  The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 1/2/2011, the date of this order.

The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.