O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri.K.Gopalan,President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return the title deed and to pay an amount of<br /> Rs.10, 000/- as compensation<br /> <br /> As per the allegations in the complaint the complainant had availed two loans from opposite party bank as MTNA 1307 and KCC 1625. The loan MTNA 1307 was granted by depositing the title deed. The entire amount of loan with interest was paid on 19.12.2006. But the titled deed was retained by the opposite party without any reason. Even after repeated request the opposite party refused to return the document. It was urgently need for him for want of partition of his property so as to help his son to construct his own house. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to return the title deed. Opposite party sent reply stating that complainant had stood as surety for another loan availed by one Gopinathan. It was true that the complainant stood as surety to said Gopinathan. But that was only a personal surety and not on the basis of deposit of title deed. More over the case filed against the said Gopinath before the Asst. Registrar of Co.op.societies in which the complainant also a party is already disposed off. The complainant is not in a position to partition the property due to non-availability of the title deed and his son is not in a position to construct the house. Thus the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Notice was served on opposite party but the opposite party did not take care to appear before the Forum and not to file version. The opposite party was called absent and set exparte.<br /> The main question to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> The evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief and Exts.A1 to A3.<br /> The complainant availed two loans from the opposite party – Bank as MTNA 1307 and KCC 1625. Complainant stated in the complaint and also in his affidavit that he has availed loan MTNA 1307 by depositing the title deed. The loan was cleared on 19.12.2006 paying the entire amount, principal and interest. It has come in evidence that a sum of Rs.47795/- has been received by the opposite party – bank to the credit of complainant as principal and interest in respect of both the loans on 19.12.2006. E.A1 receipt issued by the opposite party proves the payment. Ext.A2 (i) lawyer notice issued to opposite party on 30.1.2007 calling upon to send the title deed in respect of loan MTNA 1307 within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. Ext.A3 is the reply sent by opposite party to the notice of complainant Ext.A2 (i) opposite party admitted in their notice that the complainant availed the loans as MTNA 1307 and KCC.1625. Ext.A1 undoubtedly proved that he has paid a principal amount of Rs.37800/-and Rs.9954/- towards interest and Rs.41/- notice charge. Complainant has stated in his chief affidavit that he has paid full amount with interest. He further stated that the entire amount was paid at a stretch to close the loan for the purpose of division of property for his children. When the loan is closed by paying the entire amount to the opposite party there is no justification in keeping the title with the opposite party. Opposite party has not turned up to prove any liability up on this by the complainant. Opposite party did not even filed version. Noticed was served to Bank properly. That shows opposite party did not take care to appear and file version before the Forum very purposefully so as to harass the complainant. If there is any liability on the part of the complainant the bank could have easily prove it. All bank transactions are matters of documents and this loan transaction is so simple. Hence the non-appearance of the bank can only be considered as purposeful attempt thinking of escaping from the liability to return the document to the complainant.<br /> Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to return the deed to<br /> the complainant and has to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the title deed and to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees One thousand Five hundred only) as compensation together with a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Cash receipt dt.19, 12, 06 issued by OP<br /> A2.Copy of the lawyer notice issued to OP.<br /> A3.Reply notice sent by OP.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil<br /> Witness examined for either side: Nil<br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br />