Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/247/2017

Isidore Vazhapparampil Kanjiramchira alappuzha -7 phone .9400646040 - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Urban Co- Operative Bank Ltd.No:A67,Alappuzha - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha
 
Complaint Case No. CC/247/2017
( Date of Filing : 15 Sep 2017 )
 
1. Isidore Vazhapparampil Kanjiramchira alappuzha -7 phone .9400646040
Vazhapparampil Kanjiramchira alappuzha -7 phone .9400646040
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Urban Co- Operative Bank Ltd.No:A67,Alappuzha
Urban Co- Operative Bank Ltd.No:A67,Alappuzha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. N. Shajitha Beevi MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 08 Feb 2019
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 14thday of March, 2019.

Filed on 15-09-2017

Present

 

1) Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)

2) Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.247/2017

between

 

Complainants:-                                                                                            Opposite parties:-

Sri.V.L.Esidore                                                                                             The Chief Executive

Vazhapparampil                                                                                            Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Kanjiramchira                                                                                               No.A 67, Alappuzha.

Alappuzha-7                                                                                                 (By Adv.C.Parameswaran )

 

O R D E R

SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM(PRESIDENT -IN-CHARGE)


 

This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The averment’s in the complaint in short, are as follows:-

One V.L.Pappachan mortgaged his Patta (Pattayam) No. 9/78-79 and availed a loan from the opposite party bank. However the said Pappachan died and after the death the complainant repaid the balance loan amount and totally cleared the loan due to the bank. Thereafter the complainant requested the bank on several occasions, the bank has not returned the Pattayam. Though he filed complaint under R.T.Act the bank has not given any reply. He filed the complaint before the Asst. Registrar (General) Co-operative Department who issued a reply dated 27-04-2009. As the Patta has not been received back the complainant could not renovate the house building or develop the property that his sister is a Chronic Bachelor having 65 years and the elder sister who is residing at Cherthala, is having 80 years. The complainant and other family members have been suffering from acute financial crises. The complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss due to the non receiptment of the title deed. The complainant further prays to direct the opposite party bank to return the Patta bearing No. 389/16B.

3. The opposite party entered appearance and resisted the complaint by filing detailed objections raising the following objections:-

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further contented that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. The loan alleged to have been availed by one Pappachan was without any collateral security. The complainant is not the legal heir of the said Pappachan. The complainant has been illegally claiming that the Pappachan had created security interest in respect of his property with the opposite party. No security interest was ever created by the said Pappachan with the opposite party. The complainant approached the bank with false claim that the title deed is with the bank. The opposite party bank has caused the complainant to convince that the said Pappachan has not created any security in favor of the bank by issuing account information sheet pertaining to the loan account of the said Pappachan. The complainant has no cause of action to institute the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim of the complainant is without any merit and is only to be rejected. It is further contented that the complaint as prayed is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the claim pertaining to non-return of title deed is a civil dispute.

4. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for the consideration are:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party.

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

3) Reliefs and costs

5. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 documents. Though sufficient opportunity was granted the opposite party bank has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. The opposite party filed note of arguments.

6. Point No.1 & 2

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. PW1 is V.L. Esidore who is none other than the complainant in this case. He has reiterated the averments in the complainant during chief examination, but in the cross examination it is brought out in evidence that the title deed (Pattayam) has been issued by the Land Tribunal Alappuzha. In favor of his elder brother who died and the number of the Pattayam is 389 that his brother has died during the year 1990 PW1 would further admit that he was a surety of his elder brother to avail the loan and he has produced his salary certificate and at time he has been working at the DEO office, Alappuzha. It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that he was a surety for the loan availed by his deceased brother by mortgaging the property and has not produced his salary certificate for availing the said loan and when the property was put to auction he has availed another loan in the name of his wife and repaid the loan availed by his brother. It is also brought out in evidence that PW1 is not having any documentary evidence to show that Sri.Pappachan the elder brother of the complainant has availed the loan by mortgaging his property and hence the complainant is unable to produce any documentary evidence to prove the said fact. In this connection it is pertinent to point out that by virtue of Sec.106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden is upon the O.P. bank to produce the file relating to the loan transaction and prove that the loan was granted not on the basis of mortgaging the property of the deceased Pappachan, since it is admitted by the O.P. bank that the brother of the complainant has availed a loan from the opposite party bank. The contention of the complainant that the loan was based on a mortgage by depositing the title deed of the property of the deceased Pappachan is supported by Ext.A1 document which is the proceedings pursed by Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ambalappuzha where in it is clearly stated that similar petition has been filed by the complainant before the Asst. Registrar General, Ambalappuzha alleging that the person who availed the loan is one V.L. Pappachan who died and that the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount and also produce the receipt showing the loan amount and death certificate etc. and also alleging that the opposite party bank has not returned the title deed which was deposited as security for the loan amount. It is also stated in Ext.A1 that the Assistant Registrar General Ambalappuzha has caused to conduct an enquiry by deputing the Co-operative Inspector Mannancherry who verified the records and convinced the facts that the entire loan has been cleared as claimed in the complaint. On the basis of the report filed by the Unit Inspector the Asst. Registrar General has stated in the report para No.3 that as the loan has been completely closed the opposite party bank is having the liability to return the title deed which was offered while granting the loan by receiving certificate of inheritance and also directed to return the title deed to the complainant if he is legally entitled to receive the same and to report the fact to the O.P’s of the Asst. Registrar who signed Ext.A1. It is also clear from the available materials that the O.P. bank has initiated R.R. Proceedings against the property for realization of the loan amount due from the deceased Pappachan without getting the title deed the bank cannot proceed against the said property. In view of the reunions stated in A1 report of the Co-operative Asst. Registrar it is clear that the allegations in the complaint is true and correct and the loan amount due to the opposite party bank has been repaid by the complainant and hence the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased Pappachan is entitled to get back title deed and the opposite party bank is liable to return the title deed to the complainant after receiving the documents mentioned in Ext.A1.

7. Ext.A3 document would indicate that the complainant is the only brother of the deceased and Elsi.B.L. and Gracy B.L are the two surveying sisters of the deceased and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Pappachan. It is brought out in evidence that though loan amount and its interest already paid and Ext.A3 legal heir certificate was produced before the manager of the opposite party the opposite party bank has not returned the title deed to the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased Pappachan. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. According to the complainant as the title deed of the property was not received bank he sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss. In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get back the Patta (Pattayam) in respect of the property mortgaged by the deceased Pappachan and also entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and financial loss. The points answered accordingly.

8. Point No.3

In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the opposite party bank to return the title deed / Pattayam bearing No. 389 in respect of the 3 cents of property of the deceased Pappachan to legal heirs of the Pappachan including the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. Opposite party bank is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

If the opposite party fails to comply with the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order the complainant is entitled to proceed against the bank for realizing the present value of the above mortgaged property including the value of improvements if any along with compensation and costs from the opposite party bank and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2019.

                                                                                     Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)

                                                                                               Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1 - V.L. Esidore (Witness)

Ext.A1 - Pay-in-slip dtd 22-09-1994

Ext.A2 - Copy of letter dtd 27-04-2009

Ext.A3 - Copy of Inheritor Certificate dtd 21.10.2009

 

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil


 

                                                                                  // True Copy //


 

To

Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                                            By Order


 

                                                                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-


 


 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. N. Shajitha Beevi]
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.