D.O.F. - 17-04-2012

 D.D.O. - 15-01-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

                                      Present: Sri.K.Gopalan                    :      President

                                                    Smt.Sona Jayaraman.K.     :      Member

                                                    Sri. Babu  Sebastian           :      Member

Dated this,  the 15^th day of  January 2014

CC.No.118/2012

Shahidha.A.P                                                                 

Ayikkarakathu Puthiya Purayil (House)                                                                                                    

Kanathinchira,                                                       :       Complainant

Taliparamba (PO)

Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. Nicholas Joseph)

1. The Secrtary,

The  Taliparamba Co.Operative House

Building Society Limited,

Taliparamba (PO), - 670141.

1. Lakshmanan,

      Co-Operative  Inspector,                                 :      Opposite Parties

            Office of the Asst. Registrar of

            Co- Operative Societies,

             Taliparamba,

             Kannur (Dt.).

1. The Convener,

Administrative Committee,

The Taliparamba Co.Op. House

Building Society,

Taliparamba – 670141.

             (Rep.by Adv. Manoj.P.B.)

O R D E R

Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member

This is a complaint filed Under Section12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return the title deeds of the complainant and to pay   `.25,000 as compensation  to the complainant.

            As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant is a member of  the opposite parties Co-Op. Society bearing number of 1848.  She has availed a housing loan of  `50,000 in the year 2000, by mortgaging the title deed of the property having an extent of 5 cents and also deposited the title deed of her mother’s property having an extent 13.5 cents as a additional security.  Thereafter on 18-01-2010 complainant has repaid  the entire loan amount to the opposite parties and opposite party has issued receipt to the complainant.  But both title deeds of the properties were not returned to the complainant after requesting  several times.  So the complainant suffered great hardship and mental agony and loss.  Hence this complaint.

            After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to both parties.  But opposite parties notice returned  stating “Door closed ” and subsequently opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded and notice was served upon them.  Opposite party No.2  is one Mr. Lakshmanan, Co-Operative  Inspector and opposite party No.3 is the Administrator of the Society.  Both opposite parties have filed their version.

 The 2^nd opposite party contented that the compliant is not maintainable against him in his personal capacity  as he is only a Unit Inspector  of the 1^st Opposite party’s society.  As per the provisions of the Kerala Co-Operative societies Act 1969 a Co-Operative. society  is to be represented by  its Secretary, who is the responsible authority.  So, the 2^nd Opposite  Party being  a Unit Inspector, he has no responsibility to compensate the loss caused to the complainant and also contented that he is a public servant working in the Department of  Co. Operation.  The 3^rd Opposite Party filed the version and categorically admitted the entire case of the complainant and also submitted their difficulties and  admitted  that the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount on 18-01-2012 and closed the account.  So society has issued receipt to the complainant.  But in the present position,  the society is not able to meet its daily expenses due to financial stringency and the President and Directors have resigned from the Society.  The 3^rd  Opposite Party further submitted that he is the Administrator of the Society to ‘ protect the interest of the members”.  The  Administrative Committee can solve the  financial problem of the society.  So the society is not able to pay the compensation of  ` 25,000 to the complainant.

            On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?  If Yes?  Who is   

        liable?

1.  Whether  complainant  is entitled to get any amount  a prayed in the complaint?
2. Relief and cost?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of his affidavit-in-Chief and documentary evidence Ext. A1 to A3.   No evidence is adduced by the opposite parties  except filing the version.  Opposite parties remained absent afterward and matter posted for hearing.

Issues No.1

Admittedly the complainant  has repaid the  loan amount in the year 2010 and opposite party No. 1 issued a receipt for the same.  The contention of the opposite party No.2 is that being a public servant he is not liable for giving compensation and he has acted in his official capacity. Opposite party No.3 also admitted that the complainant has repaid the loan amount.  Opposite party No.2  and 3 are not having a case that the pledged documents were returned to the complainant.  They have not stated any reason for not giving back the title deeds complainant.  So the act of the opposite parties is not giving back the title deeds after repayment of loan is a clear deficiency in service from their part.

    Now it can be noted that as the opposite party No.2 has acted in his official capacity he is not liable to compensate the complainant.  But opposite party No. 1 and 3 are liable to return back the documents and to compensate the complainant.

Issued 2 to 3:

The 3^rd opposite  party admitted in the version, the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount on 18-01-2012 and issued receipt for the same.  This indicate that complainant’s valuable time of 2 years were deprived by the acts opposite  party.  So complainant is entitled to get the compensation for that effect.  The complainant  is entitled to get back both title deeds from the 3^rd opposite party’s society together with `.3,000 as compensation and `1,000 for litigation expenses.  So the issues 1 to 3 are answered partly in  favour of the complainant.

                 In the result, complaint is partly allowed, directing  the 3^rd opposite party to return the  original pledged documents to the complainant and to pay `3,000 as  compensation together with  `1,000 as  litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipts of this order failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order on the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of the   Consumer Protection Acts.  

                         Dated this,  the 15^th day of  January 2014

                                      Sd/-                  Sd/-                  Sd/-

                                    President         Member           Member

                                                                      APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complaint

A1 -   Copy of the  lawyer notice  dated  14-03-2012

A2 -   Postal  Receipt dated   14-03-2012

A3 -   Postal A.D Card

Exhibits  for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complaint

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                                          //Forwarded by Order//

                                                                                   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT