By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Facts of the complaint in brief:-  The Complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Varkey, S/o Mathai,Maniyile House, Payyampally Post. The said Varkey had taken a loan from the Opposite Party and there was a revenue recovery proceedings for the non-payment of the loan. While so, after the demise of the said Varkey, the First Complainant on 19.09.2015 cleared the loan in One time Settlement and paid Rs.21,600/, RR charge Rs.500/- with DD charge Rs.35/- as claimed by the Opposite Party. On the same day, the Opposite Party compelled to pay Rs.8,400/- as Suspense Fund and promised to return the title deed and other documents produced by my deceased father and the amount paid as suspense fund within ten days from 19.09.2015. Subsequently, the first Complainant approached the Opposite Party about 60 times in various days and demanded back the documents and Rs.8400/- but the Opposite Party was saying lame excuses and failed to return the documents and amount without any lawful excuses. Finally, on 03.01.2017, the  first Complainant again approached the Opposite Party and instead of returning the amount and documents, the Opposite Party defamed by using unscrupulous words and threatened the Complainant that the documents and amount would not be returned at any cost. The first Complainant then approached Mananthavady Taluk Legal Services Authority and even then the Opposite Party failed to return the same and hence this complaint. Thus, the Opposite Party is liable to return the documents and Rs.8400/- with interest and Complainants have caused heavy loss, since the properties could not be partitioned which is estimated as Rs.1,00,000/-.  The loan account was closed on 17.02.2017 and the complaint before the Legal Services Authority was given on 04.01.2017.  Even then the Opposite Party has not given back the title deed and other documents deposited with them as security and thus the complaint is filed within the period of limitations.  The act of Opposite Party is deficiency in service and it further amounts to unscrupulous exploitation of a consumer and unfair trade practice. Thus Opposite Party is legally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss and damage caused to the Complainant. Hence it is prayed to pass order directing the Opposite Party

1. To return the title deed and other documents produced by deceased Varkey as security for the loan in account No.40476130000148  
2.  To repay Rs.8400/- paid in account No.404761013050080 to the first Complainant with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum and

3.  to pay the Complainants Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards the deficiency in service and unfair -trade practice and

4.  to pay the cost of the litigation and any other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice.

3.  Upon getting summons, the Opposite Party appeared before the Commission and filed version.

4.  Contents of version:-    The Opposite Party admits that the Complainants' father Varkey had taken loan from the Opposite Party and that there was revenue recovery proceedings against him. But the Opposite Party denies that the Opposite Party promised to close the loan account and return the documents if Rs.30,000/- was deposited in suspense account etc. The Complainant has not made such a promise and the only promise given was to send the proposal of One Time Settlement to the regional office for consideration and not to close the loan account as stated in the complaint. The Opposite Party denies the allegation of the Complainants that the first Complainant has approached the Opposite Party 60 times to get back the documents but instead of returning the documents this Opposite Party defamed the Complainant by using unscrupulous words and threatened him. There was no occasion for the Opposite Party to threaten the first Complainant. The Opposite Party has only requested the first Complainant to submit an application signed by all the legal heirs along with legal heirship certificate/ Family membership certificate of the deceased Varkey. The Opposite Party made the request only to comply with the procedural requirements.

5. The Opposite Party admits the averment of the complaint that the first Complainant approached the Mananthavady Taluk legal Service Authority against the Opposite Party and even then the documents were not returned. It is submitted that the Opposite Party informed the matter to the regional office and due to the changed OTS Scheme, the regional office agreed to close the account on payment of Rs.31,233/-. The Opposite Party denies the further allegation that the Opposite Party has caused heavy loss to the Complainant since they could not partition the properties of late Varkey due to the non-return of documents. The Opposite Party denies the allegation of the complaint that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief from the Opposite Party.

6. In addition to what is stated above, the Opposite Party submits the following:- The Opposite Party had sanctioned Rs.30,000/- as agricultural loan to the Complainants' father Varkey on 09.03.2007 vide KC 23/2007. Since the Complainants' father failed to repay the loan as stipulated in the loan agreement, the Opposite Party initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings Vide. RR No 2011/1198/12 dated 01.07.2011. The said Varkey later died and the first Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 19.09.2015 and told that they wanted to close the loan account and take back the documents for partitioning the family properties. The first Complainant also informed that they were ready for a one-time settlement and agreed in writing to abide by all the terms and conditions of one-time settlement. The first Complainant requested the Opposite Party to accept Rs.21,000/- and close the loan account, withdraw the Revenue Recovery proceedings and return the documents. An amount of Rs.53,847/­ was outstanding in the loan account as on date. The Opposite Party asked the first Complainant to deposit Rs.30,000/- along with Rs.500/- towards RR charge, Rs.200/- towards notice charge and Rs.35/- being DD commission as a pre-condition to forward the proposal to the Regional Office for consideration. It was clearly informed to the first Complainant that the Regional Office would not agree for a settlement below Rs.30,000/-. Since the first Complainant deposited the amounts as mentioned above the Opposite Party took steps to withdraw the revenue recovery proceedings. The proposal was sent to the regional office but it was not accepted.  The amount kept in suspense account was credited to the loan account on 30.03.2016 as agreed upon. Thereafter, the Complainants approached the TLSC Mananthavady, Vide TLSC2/2017. The Opposite Party informed the matter to the regional office again and due to the changed OTS scheme the regional office agreed to close the loan account for Rs.31,233/- waiving Rs.34,953/-. The loan account was closed on 17.02.2017. Since the loan account was closed the first Complainant wanted to return the documents to him. As per the rules and regulations of the bank, in case the loanee is no more, the documents can be returned to the legal heirs only on an application signed by all the legal heirs along with Legal heirship certificate/ Family membership certificate. In spite of repeated request, the first Complainant failed to submit such an application. In the said circumstances, the Opposite Party is unable to return the documents to the Complainant. If the Complainants submit an application signed by all the legal heirs along with required documents, the Opposite Party is ready and willing to return the documents. As such there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainants are not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party.

7.  Both the Complainants and the Opposite Party adduced no oral evidence.  The complaint was finally heard on 19.06.2023.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Relief and Cost…?

8.  Point No.1:-  The case of the Complainants is that although the Complainants had closed the loan availed by the Complainant’s father later Varkey, the Opposite Party denied to return the documents given as security for the loan, which is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice for which the present complaint is filed with prayers.  On the other hand, the contention of the Opposite Party is that though the loan in the name of the late Varkey was closed, as per the rules and regulations of the bank, in case the loanee is no more, the documents can be returned to the legal heirs only on an application signed by all the legal heirs along with Legal Heirship Certificate/Family Membership Certificate and as the first Complainant failed to submit such an application, in spite of repeated requests, the Opposite Party is unable to return the documents to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party also submitted that they are ready to return the documents if the above formality is completed.  The Complainants have failed to contradict this contention of the Opposite Party with any corroborating evidences and as such we are of the view that there has not been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party.  So, Point No.1 is proved against the Complainants.

9.  Point No.2:-  No deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is seen proved against the Opposite Party and therefore, the Complainants have no right to get the relief as prayed for.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12^th day of July 2023.

Date of Filing:-15.12.2017.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-