By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act 1986 for order to direct the Opposite party to return the Patta, sale deed and all other documents received by the Opposite Party from the Complainant and directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant with an interest of 12% per annum and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The Opposite Party granted a loan to One P.V. Manual, S/o. Vakko and the Complainant was the surety to the loan. Later Mr. P.V. Manual made default in the repayment of the loan and the Opposite Party filed an original suit No.225/91 before the Sub Court Sulthan Bathery for recovery of the loan amount and its interest. In the suit, the Complainant was 2nd defendant. On 24.10.1992, the suit was decreed in favour of Opposite Party and the Opposite Party later filed EP 133/97 for execution. The execution petition was to recover an amount of Rs.1,11,469/-. Being the surety the Complainant was forced to remit the loan amount and the execution petition was dismissed on 17.02.2012. At the time of sanctioning loan , the Complainant handed over to the Opposite Party his Patta, purchase deed, and prior sale deeds. Even after remitting the loan amount and dismissing the EP, the Opposite Party refused to return the above said documents to the Complainant. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant presented this complaint before the Forum.
3.On receipt of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party contented that although the EP was dismissed, an amount of Rs.1,53,974/- is still pending from the Judgment Debtors towards the loan. The Opposite Party is ready to return the document of the Complainant on remittance of the full amount of loan by the Complainant. After remitting full loan amount, the Complainant has to file an application before Opposite Party to get back documents. But that is not done by Complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party.
4. The Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 are marked. The Opposite Party did not adduce oral evidence and produced one document and marked it as Ext.B1.
5. On perusal of complaint, proof affidavit of Complainant, documents and the documents and version of Opposite Party, the forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. What order as to cost and compensation?
6. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, the Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of schedule of property produced before the Opposite Party bank at the time of issuing loan by the Complainant. Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment card. The Opposite Party filed version and produced a document which is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the reply notice send to the Complainant by Opposite Party. As per the contention raised by Opposite Party in the version and as per complaint, it is evident that the Opposite Party had filed a suit OS 225/91 before the Hon'ble Sub Court Sulthan Bathery for the recovery of the loan amount from the principal debtor as well as from guarantor ie Complainant. The suit is decreed on 24.10.1992 in favour of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed EP 133/97 and the guarantor Complainant was forced to remit an amount of Rs.1,11,469/- in EP. Thereafter, EP was dismissed. Now the Opposite Party states that there is a balance amount of Rs.1,53,974/- still to be remitted in the loan amount. The Opposite Party admitted the remittance of Rs.1,11,469/- but did not produce a single piece of paper to prove that there is a balance amount of Rs.1,53,974/- is still outstanding in the loan amount. More over, the Opposite Party did not take any steps to recover the amount after dismissal of EP 133/97. What prevented the Opposite Party to take such steps is not known. Now the debt is time barred. The suit is decreed in the year 1992. 12 years is already elapsed. Now holding the documents of Complainant any more is not proper and it is illegal. No cogent explanation or evidence is produced by the Opposite Party to disprove it. No appeal is pending with respect to the suit in OS225/91 which was decreed in the year 1992. So the Forum found that there is no justification in holding the documents of Complainant with the Opposite Party any more. When the Complainant demanded the documents back, the Opposite Party did not return the documents due to unreasonable grounds, so there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party in dealing with this matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation.
In the result, the Opposite Party is directed to return the Patta, Sale Deed and all other documents received by them from the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of March 2014.
Date of filing: 03.09.2012.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Thankappan Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Property Schedule.
A2. Copy of Lawyer notice. Dt:17.03.2012.
A3. Acknowledgement.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1. Reply Notice. Dt:26.03.2012.
