DATE OF FILING :17.03.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.67/2011
Between
Complainant : C.R.Arun S/o C.I. Raghavan,
Chittadichalil House,
Munnar P.O,
KDH Village,
Idukki District
(Power of Attorney Holder of
Kamakshy D/o P. Ponnammal,
` Kottakkamboor Kara,
Kottakkamboor Village,
Devikulam Taluk,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: C.K.Babu)
And
Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Munnar Branch,
Munnar P.O, Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complaint is filed for getting back the patta No.4433 which was mortgaged to the opposite party bank as security for a loan, after the repayment of the loan amount.
2. Late Smt.Ponnammal was the absolute owner of 86.50 Ares of registered land by virtue of Patta No.4433 in R.C No.1578/65 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Devikulam in Kottakkamboor Village. She had availed a loan from the opposite party by depositing the above said patta. Smt.Ponnammal expired on 7.09.1990. Consequently the above property devolved upon the only legal heir of the said Ponnammal, Smt.Kamakshi. Since the loan became due, the opposite party initiated legal steps for the recovery of the loan amount. So RR notice was issued by the Revenue Department for the same. The entire outstanding loan was remitted at Kottakkamboor Village Office by virtue of Receipt No.73 dated 18.03.1996. After that Smt.Kamakshi approached the bank with legal heirship certificate of Ponnammal and requested to return Patta No.4433. Inspite of repeated requests and demands the opposite party did not return the documents raising one or other reason. She is residing almost 45 Kms away from the opposite party bank. For every travel she had spent atleast Rs.1,000/-. She had approached the bank for getting back the document 21 times, at last on 5.02.2011. But the opposite party was not at all ready to serve the same. In 1996, Smt.Kamakshi has sold out the property comprised in the above patta. The purchaser had been repeatedly insisting for the prior document for availing loan. But the opposite party did not pay any attention for the same. Since Kamakshi is residing at a far away place and that she is unable to travel such a long distance, she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant for receiving the document from the opposite party bank. The complainant approached the opposite party bank many times with sufficient documents. But the opposite party never considered the same. Now it is reliably understood that the above patta is lost from the opposite party bank. The bank is bound to return the above said patta to the complainant. The act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service. Due to the illegal act of the opposite party, Smt.Kamakshi had to expend Rs.21,000/- towards the travel. She had also suffered mental agony since she could not keep up her promise to the purchaser of the property. So this petition is filed for getting back the patta from the opposite party bank and also for the damages caused to her.
3. The opposite party was exparte.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant.
6. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. Late Ponnammal was the absolute owner and in possession of 86.50 Ares of registered land by virtue of Patta No.4433 in R.C No.1578/65 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Devikulam. She availed a loan from the opposite party bank but unfortunately she was expired on 7.09.1990. The copy of the death certificate produced is marked as Ext.P1. The only legal heir of the said Ponnammal is Smt.Kamakshi. Copy of the family membership certificate issued by the Village Officer stating that the said Kamakshi is the only legal heir of the said Ponnammal and the property belongs to the said Ponnammal has been transferred in the name of the said Kamakshi are marked as Ext.P2(series).The loan availed by the Ponnammal became due and the opposite party initiated legal proceedings against her. RR notice was also issued by the Revenue Department for the same. The entire outstanding loan was remitted at Kottakkamboor Village Office by virtue of Receipt No.73 dated 18.03.1996. Copy of the receipt is marked as Ext.P3. After that the said Kamakshi approached the bank with legal heirship certificate and demanded the title deed. But the opposite party denied the same. The said Kamakshi is living at a far away place and in order for her convenience she authorised the complainant for getting back the title deed deposited by late Ponnammal and a power of attorney was executed in favour of the complainant. Ext.P4 is the copy of the Power of Attorney.
Late Smt.Ponnammal availed a loan from the opposite party bank by mortgaged her patta. But unfortunately she was expired on 7.09.1990 and the whole property was legally transferred in the name of her legal heir Kamakshi. The certificate issued from the Village Office stating the same is marked as Ext.P2(series). Eventhough the opposite party initiated RR proceedings for the recovery of the loan amount, she had remitted the entire outstanding amount to the Kottakkamboor Village Office on 18.03.1996 as receipt No.73, as per Ext.P3. After that with the legal heirship certificate of Ponnammal, Smt.Kamakshi approached the bank for getting back the original patta. But the bank denied the same. She authorised the complainant with a Power of Attorney, which is Ext.P4, for getting back the patta deposited by her mother because she is residing 45 Kms away from the opposite party bank and the property was also transferred to another person. Eventhough the Power of Attorney had been approached the opposite party bank with sufficient documents, they never returned the patta. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party and the matter is not at all challenged by the opposite party anywhere. The said Kamakshi has suffered a lot because of the act of the opposite party because of the non-receipt of the original patta. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that the daughter of the expired Smt.Ponnammal, named Smt.Kamakshi suffered a lot because of the non-availability of the patta from the opposite party bank.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the original patta No.4433 in R.C No.1578/65 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Devikulam in Kottakkamboor Village, favour of Late Smt.Ponnammal, which is having an extend of 86.50 Ares, to the complainant, who is the Power of Attorney Holder of the only legal heir of the Late Smt.Ponnammal within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - C.R.Arun
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Death Certificate of P.Ponnammal
Ext.P2(series) - Photocopy of Family Membership certificate issued by the Village Officer, Kottakkamboor Village
Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Tax Receipt No.73 dated 18.03.1996 issued by the Village Officer, Kottakkamboor Village
Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
