<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed for realizing of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant and his wife are members in the opp.party bank. They have availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- each pledging the property in their joint name. They have closed the loan on 24.12.2003. Thereafter the opp.party returned the documents but withheld the release deed. The complainants approached the opp.parties several times seeking return of the release deed. Since the opp.party did not give the release deed, the complainants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala for the return of the release deed. The High Court directed the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative societies, Kollam to pass an order in the matter. After hearing both sides the Assistant Registrar directed the opp.party to give the release deed to the complainant. But without complying with that order the opp.parties filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government, Co-operative Department. During the pendency of that appeal on 14.10.2004 the document writer of the opp.party bank handed over the release deed to the complainant and thereupon the appeal was closed. On perusal of release deed it was found that the release deed was registered as early as on 19.1.2004. The opp.parties have willfully with hold the same to harass the complainants thereby committed deficiency in service. The complainant have closed the loan availed from the opp.party bank raising money by borrowing giving interest at the rate of 30% . The complainants were intending to avail a loan from District Co-operative Bank, Kollam by pledging the property with a view to clear their entire liability. Due to the non - receipt of the release deed they could not avail the loan from the District Co-operative Bank with the result that they had to pay interest for the borrowed amount for another 10 months thereby they have sustained huge financial loss. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. It is true that the complainants have availed loan of Rs.25,000/- each on 5.11.1999 from the first opp.party bank. Though they have availed the loan the repayment was not regular. However, on 24.12.2003 the loan was closed and on that day itself the opp.parties have directed one Jaya Kumar, who is the document writer of the 1st opp.party bank to prepare draft release deed. When the said Jayakumar prepared the release deed, the 2nd opp.party went to the Sub Registrar Office, Kollam on 19.1.2004 and executed the release deed. The expenses for registration was to be met by the complainants and the document writer was entrusted with the necessary expenses by the complainants themselves. The complainants ought to have collected to release deed from the said Jayakumar after the execution of the same on 19.1.2004. The opp.parties are not liable to inform the complainant the execution of the release deed. The averments in para 5 are true. The 2nd opp.party is executing several release deeds. Therefore, the execution the release deed in favour of the complainant on 19.1.2004 was forgotten by the 2nd opp.party. This fact was forgotten to be brought to the notice of the Assistant Registrar, Co- Operative Societies , Kollam. The averments in para 6 are not true. Even before the order of the Assistant Registrar the opp.party have executed the release deed . This fact happened omitted to be noticed and therefore, the appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar was filed. While the appeal was pending the fact of execution of release deed was brought to the notice of the opp.party and thereupon the appeal was closed. The averments in para 7 and 8 are denied. The complainants did not suffer any financial loss or mental agony. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examained. Exts. P1 to P14 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 to D6 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points: <br /> <br /> <br /> As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainants availed a loan from the 1st opp.party bank pledging their property and the same was closed evidenced by Exts.P2 series. The definite case of the complainants is that the opp.parties deliberately withhold the Release deed with the result that they could not avail a loan from the Dist. Co-Operative Bank, Kollam by pledging their property for clearing their liabilities. Due to non-issuance of the release deed they had to pay interest @ 30% to the money borrowed by them to close the loan as per Ext.P2 series.<br /> <br /> Now the question is whether the withholding of the release deed by the opp.parties was deliberate or not. According to the opp.parties they have arranged for the execution of the release deed on 24.12.2003 ie. The date of closing the loan itself. But no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the same was not handed over to the complainants for a long time. The opp.party has different versions for the non-issuance of release deed.. It is stated that the mother of the 2nd complainant who was a Manager of 1st opp.party bank deceived several persons of the locality and collected huge sums from them against which several cases were registered and the complainants along with her absconded and therefore, failed to collect the release deed from the 1st opp.party document writer and there are no latches on the side of the opp.parties . That argument appears to be not true or probable. The complainants filed a writ petition before the High Court for getting the release deed and obtained Ext.P4. Thereafter, as directed in Ext.P4 they approached the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kollam who passed Ext.P5 order. But without complying with that order the opp.parties filed Ext. P6 appeal. No attempt is seen made by the opp.parties to return the release deed in spite of these cases. Ext.P14 shows that the complainants were in station during the above period and the contention that the delay in collecting the release deed is because of the absconding of the complainants is baseless. The filing of Ext.P4, P5 also would clearly indicate that the complainants were in station and that they were earnestly pursuing their attempt to get back the release deed. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the opp.parties could not verify and return the release deed had there been no deliberate intention of withholding the same. The conduct of opp.party in filing Ext.P6 appeal would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the intention of the opp.parties were to delay the return of the release deed. In the version the opp.parties have stated that due to oversight they failed to remember the execution of the release deed. Every prudent man during the litigation would try to ascertain about the execution of release deed. The story of forgetting and oversight an only an attempt to get the opp.parties absolve themselves of their liability in withholding the release deed deliberately . For all that has been discussed above we hold that the opp.parties have deliberately withhold the released deed and thereby causing damages to the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay to the complainant Rs.30,000/- towards damages and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 19th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Gopinathan Nair<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Surety paper<br /> P2. – Loan chalan<br /> P3. – Letter sent by West Quilon Service Co-op. Bank to Sri. Jayakumar<br /> P4. – High Court order<br /> P5. – Proceedings<br /> P6. - Appeal copy<br /> P7. – Document <br /> P8. – Government Order<br /> P9. – Application form<br /> P10. –Advocate notice<br /> P11. – Postal receipt<br /> p12.– Acknowledgement card<br /> P13. – Writ Petition NO.2414/2004<br /> P14. – series - Registered Covers<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Muraleedharan Pillai.C.<br /> <br /> List of documents for the Opp.parties<br /> D1. – Advocate notice<br /> D2. – Notice dated 15.1.2004<br /> D3. – Notice sent by Central Bank of India<br /> D4. – Letter sent by Quilon Taluk Co-op. Employees’ Co-op. society Ltd.<br /> D5. – Attachment order<br /> D6. – Letter sent by Lalithambika to the President, West. Quilon Service Co-op.Bank<br />