Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/592

SRI MUHAMMED SALIM - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJMOHAN C S

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.592/2014

JUDGMENT DATED :16/11/15

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.261/06 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha, order dated ; 28.05.2008)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A. RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS       : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Sri. Muhammed Salim,

          Nizam Manzil,V.P. Road,

          Lejanath Ward, Alappuzha,

          Now residing at Kilichundanmakkal House,

          Sasthamkoikkal, Vaipur,

          Pathnamthitta.

 

          (By Adv. Sri.Rajmohan. C.S.)

 

                                                                                      VS.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1.   The Manager,

          Union Bank of India,

          Alappuzha Branch.

 

2.   Sri. R. Asad Babu,

          Advocate, Near Ganapathi Kovil,

          Mullackal. P.O.,

          Alappuzha.

 

          (By Adv. Sri.R.Jagadish Kumar)

 

JUDGMENT

         

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                Appellant is the complainant in CC.No.261/2006 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. The complainant alleged that he deposited the title deeds relating to his property as security for loan availed by one P.R.Sasidharan. Sasidharan committed default in repayment of the loan. Hence the bank instituted OS.No.240/1983 for recovery of the loan amount. In that proceedings the complainant discharged the entire liability. But the opposite parties failed to return the documents accepted by them as security. The complainant understands that the second opposite party the legal advisor of the first opposite party had got returned the title deeds from the court and the first opposite party is purposefully not returning the title deeds. Hence the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.

        2.     The contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version are that no consumer dispute is involved. The complaint is barred by limitation and that all the documents were obtained from the court and the complainant had obtained the documents from the bank. It is admitted that the first opposite party had filed OS.No.240/1983 before the sub court, Alapuzha against the complainant and others and the complainant had remitted the entire decree amount in court.

        3.     Before the consumer forum the power of attorney holder of the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Photocopy of a letter dated 05.06.2001 is produced by the opposite parties and marked as Ext.B1. The consumer forum accepting the contentions of the opposite parties dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the title deeds of the complainant were returned to him as contended.

        4.     It may be mentioned that if as a matter of fact the opposite parties have failed to return the original title deeds certainly a consumer dispute is involved. So also, if the document is not returned, the cause of action continues and it cannot be said that the claim is barred by limitation. According to the appellant Exts.A2, A3 & A4 letters written by the senior manager of the first opposite party bank would clearly show that the title deeds submitted by the complainant were destroyed by the sub court, Alappuzha obviously as it was  not got returned on time. It can be seen from these letters that the documents were destroyed as the case was of the year 1983 and the bank had made arrangements to obtain duplicate copy of the documents. The contention that the complainant had got returned the documents from the bank is taken on the basis of an earlier letter Ext.B1 dated 06.06.2001. Ext.A5 is the same letter produced by the complainant. Ext.B1 is relied on to contend that the complainant has got back the title deeds. The letter reads: the guarantor of the above loan had completely remitted the amount due to the bank. We would like to request to kindly permit us to withdraw the EP and necessary steps may be taken for releasing the title deeds and other connected papers to the owner of the property” (complainant). The letter is written by the senior manager of the first opposite party. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Ext.A2 is subsequently written by the same manager.   On Exts.B1 and A5 it is endorsed “documents received " and a signature allegedly of the complainant is seen put underneath.  Again the same words are repeated and another signature is seen. The contention that the title deeds were returned to the complainant is taken on the basis of these endorsements.

        5.     It is pertinent to mention that as per Ext.B1 the counsel of the first opposite party was apparently requested to take steps for releasing the title deeds and other connected papers to the owner of the property namely the complainant. The documents were apparently in the court. Then the procedure involved, the counsel of the first opposite party filing necessary application and getting the documents returned and sending the same to the bank it is for the bank in turn to return the original title deed to the complainant who deposited the same. Ext.B1 is incapable of proving that such a procedure was adopted. There is apparently nothing to indicate that the title deeds were got returned by the counsel of the first opposite party from court. It is quite possible that when the advocate concerned approached the court based on Ext.B1 dated 06.06.2001 he was told that the documents were destroyed as the suit was of the year 1983 and the decree in the case should have been passed not long afterwards. Such documents would be preserved only for three years in civil courts. So the letters Exts.A2, A3 & A4 written subsequently assumes credibility and in all probability the title deeds would have been destroyed while in court .so it is quite evident that the first opposite party is not in a position to return the original title deeds to the complainant. The first opposite party and their counsel are expected to get the original title deeds returned from the sub court, on time preserve the same and to return the title deeds to the complainant.  Failure to do so, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to compensation. Considering the circumstances available Rs.35,000/- would be the reasonable compensation. The conclusion of the consumer forum to the contrary is incorrect. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

        In the result, the appeal is allowed.  In reversal of the order of the consumer forum dated 28.05.2008, CC.No.261/2006 is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service together with Rs.5,000/- as cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum .

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A. RADHA                              : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS       : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.592/2014

JUDGMENT DATED: 16/11/15

 

 

Be/