BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.06/2009

Between

Complainant : Joseph S/o Joseph,

Karukappillil House,

Koombanpara Kara,Vellathooval Village,

Devikulam Taluk.

And

Opposite Party : The Secretary,

Devikulam Taluk Co-operative

Agricultural and Rural Development

Bank Limited, No.I-136, Devikulam.

(By Adv: Praveen K. George)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.15,000/- for agricultural purpose from the opposite party bank. At the time of availing the loan the complainant mortgaged his 33 cents of land in survey No.291/40/B-1 of Vellathooval village to the opposite party bank. The copy of the pattayam of one Mathew S/o Pilly and his tax receipt, Encumbrance Certificate were also produced before the opposite party at the time. Now the complainant has closed entire loan, but the opposite party has collected Rs.15,112/- as excess amount in the name of "suspense account". The original documents are not returned from the opposite party. So this petition is filed.

2. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant availed loan of Rs.15,000/- from the opposite party bank as loan No. O.R.D 4817 and the documents regarding the title of the property were deposited in the bank. The complainant availed 5 loans from the opposite party bank. 33 cents of land owned by the complainant and another 1 acre of land of the complainant were given as security for the loan. The loan became default. So the property given as security was put for public auction. As per the sale proceedings of the sale officer, the sale was confirmed. So the complainant has to approach Director Board of the Co-operative society for repayment of the loan account and to get the property released. There is no deficiency in the part of opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4(series) marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. THE POINT:- The complaint is filed for getting back the documents produced before the opposite party bank at the time of availing the loan. Complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, the loan availed was Rs.15,000/- and it was closed by him. But the property given as security, which is 33 cents of land in Vellathooval Village as document No.555 of Devikulam SRO was not returned. Ext.P1 and P2 are the bills issued for an amount of 3,638/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively from opposite party bank to the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter given by the counsel of the complainant to the opposite party bank. Ext.P4(series) is the receipt for an amount of Rs.15,112/- issued to the complainant from the opposite party bank.

As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 admitted that he availed 5 loans from the opposite party bank, for a total amount of Rs.1,16,000/-. It is also admitted that another 1 acre of land in the name of the complainant is also pledged to the opposite party bank for availing the loan. The entire property was put in auction sale on 19/07/2003, but PW1 admitted that the sale of 1 acre was done on 19/07/2003. When the counsel for opposite party asked whether the complainant is entitled to pay Rs.1,80,000/- to the opposite party bank, he answered that he is not aware of that. But he paid the entire amount of the loan availed by the security of 33 cents of land. The opposite party produced the copy of the order of the District Registrar General, which is Ext.R1. In that, the property of the complainant named K.J. Joseph who is the member of the bank, as No.16232, which is in survey No.293/20-3, 291/40 B of Vellathooval village, total extent of 1 acre and 33 cents was put in public auction, and it was confirmed in the name of bank for Rs.1,41,215/- on 19/03/2005, the boundaries of the property are also mentioned. The copy of the auction dairy also produced as Ext.R2 and the copy of Mahazer for the auction is produced as Ext.R3. So it is evident that the complainant availed 5 loans from the opposite party bank and the amount of that 4 loans are pending with default. So the property which was given as security for the loan was put in auction sale, by the sale proceedings of the sale officer. The sale was conducted on 14/07/2003, the sale was confirmed by the Registrar of the Co-operative society. So we think that there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The complainant has to approach the Director Board of the Co-operative Society after payment of loan account to get the property released.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Joseph

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Cash Receipt dated 31-03-2004 for Rs.3,638/-

Ext.P2 - Cash Receipt dated 31-03-2004 for Rs.4,000/-

Ext.P3 - Copy of the Letter dated 30-07-2009.

Ext.P4(series) - Receipt for an amount of Rs.15,112/-

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of the Order of District Registrar General dated 19-03-2005

Ext.R2 - Copy of the auction dairy dated 30-03-2009.

Ext.R3 - Copy of Mahazer for the auction dated 14-07-2003.