KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.514/09 JUDGMENT DATED 28.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER The Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, Kunchithanny Branch, -- APPELLANT Kunchithanny, Idukki District. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. Prakash K.R, Kavumprayil House, -- RESPONDENT Ellackal P.O, Chithirapuram. (By Adv.Sreevaraham N.G.Mahesh)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Federal Bank in CC No.47/07 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellants are under orders to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards expenses for taking a duplicate copy and Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the title deed of his property submitted by him towards security for the loan availed was not returned by the opposite parties, even after the loan amount was realized. 3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the loan was disbursed in the year 1990, and that the matter was settled only in the year 2005. The opposite party had filed a suit before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha for realizing the loan amount. Even after the suit was decreed the amount was not paid and hence EP was filed. During the pendency of the E.P the counsel who was appearing ie; Mr. Jacob Philip died. Thereafter the opposite parties could not trace out the title deed. Complainant had obtained a duplicate copy under the Registration Act and that duplicate of the title deed under the provisions of the Registration Act is valid for all purposes. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 & DW2, Exts.P1 to P6 and R1 certified copy of the document. 5. The counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that Ext.R1 is the certified copy of the document. Under the Registration Act the same is sufficient for the purpose of selling the property etc. It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to sell the property at the time of marriage of his daughter. The Forum has noted that there is no evidence as such to support the above claim. All the same, the Forum has held that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 6. In view of the fact that the title deed was submitted to secure the loan and that the same is evident from the loan proceedings the complainant would be able to convince the intended purchasers as to the title of the property by the duplicate copy obtained from the Sub Registry, the amount of compensation ordered to be paid appears excessive. 7. In the circumstances, we find that the amount of compensation can be sealed down to Rs.25,000/- . The complainant is also permitted to receive Ext.R1 certified copy of the title deed produced before the Forum. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above. The office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
