The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows:

The Complainant is one of the legal heirs of the deceased father. The father of the legal heirs availed two loans from the Opposite Party's bank upon the deposit of the title deed as security. The repayment was not made in time and legal actions were taken against the legal heirs. The Opposite Party filed two suits O.S 140/06 and O.S 141/06 against the legal heirs of the Sri. K.U. Thomas in the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. Due amount of the legal heirs to the Opposite Party's bank was remitted in installments. When the Opposite Party was demanded to pay back the title deed kept in security, the document was not released. The legal heirs contacted the Opposite Party now and again to get back the title deed. But it was not given back. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to return the deposited document the title deed No.7/95. Towards the loss inconvenience and other hardships, the Complainant and other legal heirs are to be compensated with Rs. 10,000/- along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows: The diseased K.U. Thomas, the father of the complainant availed two loans. As the security for the loan the title deed No.7/95 was deposited. The loan amount became overdue which instead caused two suits No. O.S. 140/06 and O.S 141/06 in the Munsiff Court Kalpetta. When the properties that are kept in security are tried to be disposed by the legal heirs, the Opposite Party took steps for the attachment of the property. The title deed was produced as a document in the IA filed. On closing the loan the Complainant requested to give back the title deed deposited. The Opposite Party has taken

necessary steps to get back the title deed produced in the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. The title deed is not returned even though the earnest effort were taken by the Opposite Party and it is also known to the Opposite Party that the title deed produced is misplaced somewhere else from the Munsiff Court Kalpetta. The Opposite Party is ready to issue a certified copy of the document to be obtained from Sub Registrar Office with a certificate and affidavit stating the reasons. The claim for compensation is baseless. There is no negligence or omission on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed.

3. The points in consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

    

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed affidavit swearing the contentions. Ext.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party swear the contentions and filed affidavit, Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.

5. The case of the Complainant is that the title deeds kept in security was not given back. The contentions of the Opposite Party is that the title deeds were produced in the Munsiff court, Kalpetta, in connection with the proceedings for the attachment of property. The title deed deposited as such was not given back and the Opposite Party had filed application for the return of the document. The title deed produced in the court misplaced in files and as a result it was not given back to the Opposite Party. The title deed No. 7/95 was deposited as security for the loan availed by the diseased father of the Complainant. The Complainant herein is

the legal heirs of the diseased K.U. Thomas. Ext. A1 is the family membership certificate. The Complainant is authorised to receive document deposited in the bank. The Opposite Party has given a letter to the counsel appearing for them to release the document to Sri. Reji Thomas the Complainant. The loan amount availed from the Opposite Party's bank was repaid under the scheme of one time settlement and Rs.34,730/- was remitted. The Opposite Party initiated legal steps against the respondents in IA 820/06 in O S 140/06. Ext.B4 is the copy of memo filed by the counsel of the Opposite Party to get back the title deed No.7/95 SRO Kalpetta. It shows that the title deed is produced in Munsiff Court Kalpetta in O S 140/06 and I A 820/06. Any other earnest effort if done by the Opposite Party is not substantiated by any document in evidence. According to the Complainant in the absence of the original title deed they have to face so many hurdles even the partition could not be done. Apart from the memo filed by the counsel of the Opposite Party dated 30.9.2008 any other steps if taken prior to it or afterwards to get back the title deed deposited is not produced. The non return of the title deed is deficiency in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2 :- The case of the Complainant is to get back the title deed along with cost and compensation. The Opposite Party is bound by responsibility to give back the title deed deposited No.7/95. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the delay in giving back the title deed. Ernest effort on the part of the Opposite Party to get back the title deed deposited in court is not evidently established. The Opposite Party has to give cost and compensation to the Complainant and the title deed No.7/95 kept in security is to be given back to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to return the title deed No.7/95 SRO, Kalpetta to the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) from the Opposite Party. This is to be complied with within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27^th day of November 2008.