Date of filing : 11-05-2009 Date of order : 19-10-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 117/09 Dated this, the 19th day of October 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER M. Anantheshwar Kamath, S/o. Panduranga Kamath, Manjeshwar, Hosbettu Village, } Complainant Kasaragod Taluk. (Adv. Kodoth Unnikrishnan, Kasaragod) The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Manjeshwar Branch, } Opposite party Po. Manjeshwar, Kasaragod Taluk. (Advs. I.V. Bhat and Adv. S.Mahalinga, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the title deeds of his property deposited with the opposite party for availing a loan by way of equitable mortgage has not returned inspite of clearing the entire dues. The complainant is a senior citizen aged 70 years and a cardiac patient requires his title deeds for all purpose. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2. According to opposite party the original document is not traceable and all attempts made by the opposite party for tracing out the document became futile. But the Bank is ready to get a certified copy of the said document at their expense along with a certificate showing that the document was irrecoverably lost from their custody such a certified copy would be a good substitute for the original. The complainant has not sustained any monetary loss nor any mental agony. 3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Ext.A1 office copy of the lawyer notice dated 18-02-09 issued to opposite party and Ext.A2 its reply dated 19-03-2009 is marked. Both sides heard. 4. There is no dispute regarding the deposit of title deeds of the property of the complainant with opposite party and its subsequent loss or missing from the custody of the opposite party. The complainant during enquiry has stated that he want to dispose of his property to join with his daughter and they are residing with their family in a far away place and due to lack of original title deeds nobody ready to purchase the property. 5. The attempt of the counsel for the opposite party Sri.Mahlinga was to establish that the certified copy of a document is sufficient to create equitable mortgage. He relied very much on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in 1980 KLT 550 in the case of Syndicate BANK V. Modern Tile & Clay Works and the case State Bank of Travancore TVM V. Velayudhan Pillai & Others reported in AIR 1996 Kerala 32. But the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely different. It is not the case of the complainant that he want to avail another loan by creating another equitable mortgage with any other Banks or financial institutions with his property as security. 6. The original title deed of a property is an important document. In common parlance a purchaser would hesitate to purchase a property if the original title deed is not passed. Usually no banks would provide any loan in the absence of the original deeds for creating equitable mortgage and even opposite party has not stated that whether they are granting loans on the strength of certified copies of the title deeds. The irresponsible act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. 7. The claim of the complainant is Rs.50,000/- and the same is appears to be a little high. However considering his age and ailments we pass the following order. The complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite party shall pay interest @ 9% for Rs.30,000/- from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.18-2-09 Copy of lawyer notice. A2. 19-3-09 reply notice. PW1.Anantheswar Kamath Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
