The case of the complainant is as follows:

The petitioner is a member of the opposite party Co-operative Bank. The complainant is a subscriber of chitty conducted by the opposite party Bank bearing No.12/89 the chitty was prized for Rs.18,480/- on 7.1.1991and the complainant obtained the chitty amount on 26.3.1991. He furnished the title deed No.2327/85 of S.R.O. Kuravilangadu, having an extent of 50 cents of property, which belongs Sri.E.J. Antony, Illinikkumthadam house, Nazarath Hill, as a security, for the future subscription. The complainant had repaid the full chitty amount and the same was closed in January 1993. But the opposite party failed to return the title deed, which was given as security for the chitty amount, despite of repeated demands. After completion of the chitty, transaction the owner of the title deed demanded it from the complainant for the purpose of taking loan from the bank by depositing title deed for the educational purpose of his daughter. But the complainant has

-2-

unable to return the title deed due to the illegal, negligent act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

Notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contenting as follows. There is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant for obtaining the priced chitty amount executed the registered chitty bond on 11.2.1991 along with the brother of complainant Mr.E.J. Antony. According to the opposite party no title Deeds No.2269 of Kuravilangadu S.R.O. Was entrusted to the opposite party. The opposite party always willing to execute the relinquishment deed in respect of mortgage deed No.482/90-91 executed by Mr.E.J.Kurian and Mr.E.J.Antony. The opposite party was always willing to do the same, but the original mortgage deed was marked in evidence in a domestic enquiry conducted against Mr.T.V.Sebastian who was the manager of the Naserath Hill Branch of the opposite party Bank. The said document was marked as Ext. M15 by the enquiry officer and subsequently the said document was produced in ARC No. 6/92 and it was marked as exhibit A12 and subsequently the document was marked as exbt. DA6 when the ARC case was re-numbered as ARC 4/96. The original of the said document was in the possession of the opposite party and the opposite party always willing to execute the relinquishment deed in respect of the said mortgage deed in favour of the complainant and his brother Mr.E.J.Antony at their expense. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant may be dismissed with costs.

The complainant filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A3. The opposite party filed proof Affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits B1 to B4.

--3-

Heard Both sides. The complainant filed argument note. We

have gone through the version, documents and evidences of both parties. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not return the original documents and relinquishment of the mortgage even after remitting entire chitty amount to the opposite party. According to the complainant he made request before the opposite party several times for return of the documents. The opposite party has made contention that they are ready and willing for relinquishment of the mortgage deed. According to the opposite party the original mortgage deed was submitted before the higher Authority. The opposite party denied the entrustment of the title deed. But we are of the opinion that the said contention of the opposite party is not believable. Furthermore opposite party has not produced any documents to prove about the documents like inward register etc. to prove the truth of the said entention. According to the opposite party as the case pending as ARD.4/96 and the document marked as exhibit DA.6. Admittedly the complainant remitted the entire chitty amount to the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party admitted that the disputed deed was submitted in the case pending before the higher Authority. The opposite party has no case that the complainant was defaulted chitty amount. The opposite party has admitted that they are ready and willing to execute relinquishment of the mortgage. It is clear that the opposite party has not done anything in favour of the complainant after he remitted the entire chitty amount including return of the original title deed and relinquishment of the mortgage. The opposite party has submitted that the original title deed was produced before the Authority in a pending case. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to return back the original title deed to the complainant. The act of opposite party amounts to in deficiency in service. we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

-4-

In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite party to return the title deed of 50 cents of property belonged to Sri.E.J.Antony Illinikkumthadam (H) Nazareth Hill

P.O. deposited as security to the chitty transaction No.12/89 of the complainant and execute the relinquishment deed in favour of the complainant. If it is not possible the opposite party shall pay Rs.5000/- to complainant as the expenses for taking certified copy of the title deed from the SRO. (2) We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for inconvinences of the complainant. (3) We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.750/- to the complainant as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.