.

THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC. No. 175/2008

Monday, the 16^th day of November, 2009.

Petitioner : Kuriakose,

Edattu House,

Vadavathoor P.O

Vijayapuram, Kottayam

(By Adv. Muhammed Nizar N.P)

Vs.

Opposite parties : 1) The State Bank of Travancore,

Regional Office,

Collectorate P.O., Kottayam

Reptd by its Regional Manager.

2. The Branch Manager

State Bank of Travancore,

Vadavathoor Branch

(By Adv. Thomas Mannanal)

O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioners is as follows:

Petitioner availed a cash credit loan for Rs. 55,000/- and medium term loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the 1^st opposite party through the second opposite party. According to the petitioner as security for repayment of the loan petitioner deposited the original settlement deed registered as document No. 2266 of 1986 of Kottayam additional S.R.O. Petitioner states that he availed loan for starting a hotel business by way of self employment. Since petitioner was not able to pay said loan amount within the agreed period opposite party’s filed a suit numbered as O.S 29/98 before the Sub Court,

-2-

Kottayam. Petitioner paid the entire loan amount, interest there on and cost of suit to the opposite parties and requested the second opposite party to return the settlement deed deposited with the opposite parties. Even though the petitioner had requested several times to the opposite party to return the document but the opposite party’s avoided the petitioner without any valid reason. During the time petitioner wanted to avail a loan from Manganam Service Co-Op. Bank. On scrutiny of the document produced by the petitioner bank directed petitioner to produce the original title deed for sanctioning the loan. So, petitioner again approached opposite party and requested to return the document immediately. Opposite party instead of returning the documents informed the petitioner that said document was entrusted with their counsel in connection with the suit filed against the petitioner and they would return the same as and when received from the counsel. According to the petitioner opposite party had a bounden duty to return the document after closing of the entire loan. The non return of the document even after the closing of the loan according to the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service. So, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to return the original of settlement deed No. 2266 of 1986. If the opposite party failed to return the deed petitioner prays for an order stating that said document is irrecoverable lost from the opposite party and the opposite party may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Petitioner also claims Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for loss and sufferings. He also claims Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted availing of cash credit limit to the petitioner.

-3-

They admitted that petitioner deposited settlement deed No. 2266/86 of Kottayam Additional SRO (partially mutilated) along with a certified copy of the same and a certified copy of partition deed No. 2355/1122 ME of Kottayam Additional SRO for crediting equitable mortgage. Petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of repayment of the above said loans. So, the bank filed a suit before Munsiff court, Kottayam as O.S 929/98 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 83865/- through Adv. A.V George, a senior counsel of the bank. During pendency of the suit matter had been settled on 11..11..99. On payment of the settled amount, petitioner received back settlement deed No. 2266/86 of Kottayam additional SRO along with certified copy of the same and certified copy of partition deed No. 2355/1122 ME of Kottayam Additional

SRO on 2..6..2000 from the Adv. A.V George. Petitioner had in writing acknowledged receipt of this title deed on 2..6..2000. So opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Relief and costs.

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and

Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

-4-

Point No. 1

Opposite party produced a copy of the acknowledgement evidencing receipt of the deed. Petitioners counsel objected marking of the document on the ground that it is a fabricated document. So the said document is marked subject to its evidentiary value as Ext. B1. Subsequently opposite party produced the original of the book which is kept in the office of Senior counsel of opposite party Adv. A.V George. The Senior Superintendent of the CDRF Kottayam verified a copy of the acknowledgement with the original and attested the same. . On verification of the book it is found that book is kept and maintained for daily use in the office of Adv. A.V George. In Ext. B1 petitioner himself in his on handwriting acknowledged on 2..6..2000 that he received back the settlement deed No. 2266/86 of Kottayam Additional SRO along with certified copy of the same, and certified copy of partition deed No. 2355/1122 ME of Kottayam Additional SRO from Adv. A.V George. So, in our view from Ext. B1 it can be seen that petitioner himself in writing acknowledged receipt of the title deed on 2..6..2000. Forum verified the signature and handwriting of the petition in Ext. B1 and Vakalath executed by the petitioner. On verification it is found that signature and the handwriting of the petitioner in the Vakkalath and Ext. B1 are one and the same. So, the inference that can be drawn is that petitioner accepted the documents and no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

-5-

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-

APPENDIX

Documents for the Petitioner:

Ext. A1: Letter Dtd: 22..9..2000 given by Adv. A.V George to the President,

Manganam Co.Op. Bank.

Ext. A2: Copy of letter given by Adv. Thomas Mannalal Dtd: 19..1..2007 to the

petitioner.

Documents for the Opposite party

Ext. B1: Copy of the acknowledgement of receipt of the title deed Dtd: 2..6..2000.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent

amp/ 5 cs.