Kerala

StateCommission

RP/24/2017

CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREESANKAR - Opp.Party(s)

G S KALKURA

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
Revision Petition No. RP/24/2017
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/93/16 of District Palakkad)
 
1. CANARA BANK
SENIOR MANAGER, KULAPULLY, SME BRANCH, KULAPULLY, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK- 679522
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SREESANKAR
CHAKKINGALTHODI, VADANAMKURISSIR.P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK- 679121
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN PRESIDENT
  SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 11 Aug 2017
Final Order / Judgement

THE KERALA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD,  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

REVISION PETITION   NO – 24/2017

ORDER DATED. 11/08/2017

 

PRESENT:-

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

         

SRI. V.V.JOSE      : MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITIONER:

 

          Canara Bank,

          Rep. by its Senior Manager,

          Kulappully, SME Branch,

          Kulapully, Shoranur,

          Ottapalam Taluk- 679 522.

         

          (By Adv. G.S.Kalkura)

 

  •      

 

RESPONDENT:

 

           Sreesankar,

          S/o Unniyappan, 

          Chakkingalthodi,

          Petitioner,

          Vadanamkurissir. P.O,

          Ottapalam Taluk- 679 121.

 

 

(2)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

 

          Surety in a loan  transaction  with the Revision Petitioner bank after closing of the loan transaction approached the District Forum with a complaint  over the non return of title deed tendered as security for loan.

          After hearing both sides the District Forum allowed the complaint entering finding there was deficiency of service  on the part of the bank in non-returning the title deed furnished as security.  A time limit was fixed for return of security with direction to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-  and cost of Rs. 3000/- .  However in the order passed by the Forum while directing return of the document with an alternative clause over imposition of penalty on default, an error occurred in combining  penalty  with the cost ordered  in the proceedings .  Taking advantage of that the revision petitioner  resisted the claim for compensation and cost ordered by the  Forum.  That objection was found having no merit by the

                                                          (3)

Forum.  On the finding of the deficiency of service  entered the bank was bound  to pay penalty  and cost.   We do not find any merit in the revision filed challenging the order of the lower forum clarifying  the order passed  in the complainant that cost ordered in the proceedings is  distinct  and different from the penalty liable for default in non returning security.

          Revision is dismissed. 

                                                                                               

JUSTICE  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

         

 V.V.JOSE                                            : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sh/-

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN]
PRESIDENT
 
[ SRI. V. V. JOSE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.