KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.362/11
JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2011
RESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Branch Manager
Catholic Syrian Bank
Kombidinjimakkal P.O,
Thjazhekkad (via) 680697. -- APPELLANTS
2. Chairman/Managing Director,
Catholic Syrian Bank
ST.Mary’s College Road,
Thrissur 680020.
(By Adv.R.S.Kalkura & Ors.)
Vs.
Shajan Poulose, Njarleli House,
Vellanchira P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Thazhekkad (via)
Pin 680697.
( By Adv.Unnikrishnan.V)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in CC.214/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in his failure to return the title deed which was deposited by the complainant with the first opposite party for availing a loan of Rs.25,000/- under SGSY Scheme. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They took the contention that the complainant had not deposited his title deed for availing the aforesaid loan under SGSY scheme. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.214/07.
2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and an officer of the opposite party/bank was examined as RW1. Exts.P1, P2 and R1 to R3 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th December 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite parties to return the document and if it is lost they are directed to furnish certified copy of the same to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-. With a default clause to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, the present appeal.
3. We heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on R1 document register and R2 sanction letter and canvassed for the position that there is nothing to show that the respondent/complainant produced the title deed of his property for availing the loan under SGSY scheme. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- under SGSY scheme and that the aforesaid loan transaction was closed on 29.12.03 and thereby the complainant obtained the subsidy by closing the loan within 3 years. The definite case of the respondent/complainant is that he had produced his title deed for availing the loan under SGSY scheme and he requested the first appellant/first opposite party to return the title deed as and when he was in need of the title deed for availing another loan. On the other hand, the appellants would contend that they were not in need of the title deed of the lonee for granting a loan under SGSY scheme. It is also the case of the appellant/bank that the loan was granted to the complainant on the strength of the guarantee given by one C.D.Jose. But, at the same time, R1 document register would not give any indication that the salary certificate of the guarantor C.D.Jose was obtained. The Forum below has considered this aspect and rightly come to the conclusion that all the details regarding the security obtained are not included in R1 document register. The Forum below has also appreciated the evidence of RW1 and that of the complainant as PW1. The findings and conclusions of the Forum below is based on the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record. This Commission is of the considered view that the Forum below has rightly accepted the case of the complainant that he handed over the title deed of his property to the first opposite party, Branch Manager, Cathelic Syrian Bank, for availing the loan under SGSY scheme. So, the finding of the Forum below that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is to be upheld. The Forum below has only directed the appellants/opposite parties to return the title deed or to obtain a certified copy of the same and to hand over the same to the complainant. There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not returning the title deed. So, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- ordered can be treated as just and reasonable compensation. The cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Forum below can be considered as just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be upheld.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2010 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.214/07 is confirmed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
