CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 10th day of June 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 24/09/2013
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/158/2013
1. G.V. Sreedharan,
S/o. Govindan Vaidyar,
Ganapathi Valappil,
Perumudiyar Amsam Desam,
Ottapalam Taluk.
2. K.T. Kousalya
W/o. G.V. Sreedharan,
Ganapathi Valappil,
Perumudiyar Amsam Desam,
Ottapalam Taluk. : Complainants
( By Adv. B. Kamal Chand)
Vs
The Manager ,
State Bank of India,
Muthuthala Branch,
Muthuthala, Pattambi. : Opposite party
(By Adv. T.V. Pradeesh)
O R D E R
By Smt. Seena. H. President.
Complaint in brief :-
Complainant No.1 as debtor and Complainant No.2 as Guarantor availed loan at Rs. 40,000/- from opposite party bank by creating equitable mortgage of the property of complainant No.2. Four cents of property under survey 218/7 was mortgaged . Thereafter complainant repaid the whole loan amount. After repayment when the complainants demanded the documents despite, opposite party refused to handover the same. Complainant has caused a lawyer notice dated 06/04/2013 demanding the document for which opposite party has not sent any reply. Due to the act of opposite party complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- . Complainant could not avail loan from other banks for want of title deeds. Hence the complaint. Complainants for an order directing opposite party to return the little deeds along with Rs. 1 lakh as compensation.
Opposite party filed version . According to opposite party complaint itself is vague incomplete, misrepresenting and filed with ulterior motive. Complainant has suppressed several facts in the complaint. Complainant has availed loan by pledging 21 cents of property under survey 11/13 and 4 cents of property under survey no. 218/7. Complainant failed to repay the loan and hence Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated . Both the properties were auctioned. 4 cents of property was auctioned by the son of complainant. All these issues were in the year 1997. All the documents were handed over to the concerned authorities. Reply notice was not issued as the complainant No. 2 personally come to the opposite party bank and got convinced about the facts. According to opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Though two documents were produced by the complainant with the chief affidavit, documents were not marked as the complainant remained absent for evidence. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite party also.
Issues that arise for consideration .
1. where there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? .
2. If so, what is relief and cost entitled ?
Issues 1 & 2
The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party failed to return the title deeds and other documents even after clearing the entire loan account. According to opposite party , complainant has mortgaged not only 4 cents of property but also another 21 cents. 4 cents of property was auctioned by the complainant’s son in the year 1997. On going through the available evidence on record, we are also of the view that complaint itself is a vague one misrepresenting and suppressing many facts. The fact that complainant’s son has auctioned the property in the year 1997 itself was suppressed by the complainants, most probably for evading limitation. None of the documents ( even though not marked ) evidences
any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. More over complainant was not present for cross examination , there by denying opportunity of cross examination by the opposite party. Further complainant remained absent for several posting and there was no representation also. The facts of the complaint and the attitude of the complainants goes on to show that it’s a false case filed on experimental basis. In the view of the above facts we are of the view that this is a fit case to award compensation under section 26 of Consumer Protection act.
In the result complaint dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,500/- ( Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to opposite party . Amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order .
Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of June 2014.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.2,500/- allowed as cost to the opposite party.
