SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The complainant availed 2 loans from the opposite party, one was for agricultural purpose and the other was for business purpose. The first loan was closed on 25.07.2006 by a settlement conducted by the opposite party. Complainant paid Rs.4,000/- and the opposite party proposed a write off of Rs.2,292/- due to the bank. The first loan which was an agricultural loan, availed by a mortgage security of 1 acre and 63 cents of land in Survey No.161/1 in Kanjikuzhy Village by the complainant. The second loan was availed for business purpose and the security was given for the same was his building. The business loan was for Rs.25,000/- and is paying by the complainant through monthly installments of Rs.500/- each. When the first loan was closed, the complainant asked for return of his title deed of 1.63 acres of land, which was produced before the bank for the purpose of security of the first loan. But the bank compelled him to pay the entire business loan and only after paying the same, the title deed will be returned. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for getting back the title deed of 1.63 acres of land of the complainant and also compensation under various heads.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version, it is stated that the complainant himself is a defaulter of loan advanced by the opposite party. The loan was availed during the years 1999, 2000 and 1996. Hence a defaulter of loan cannot be stepped into the shoes of a consumer as defined in the Act. The complainant has already mortgaged his property in favour of the opposite party bank. He also executed documents in favour of the opposite party vide as a collateral security for a loan and guarantor of another loan. The entire loan became overdue. Before releasing the title deed the complainant has to clear all dues to the bank. A recovery camp of defaulters were conducted on 25.07.2006 at Idukki. The opposite party advised to remit Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.6,292/- due to the bank. The opposite party proposed to write off Rs.2,292/- due to the bank. Further another loan granted to the complainant under small trader category is over due. The bank has right to retain the title deeds of security property till the loan accounts settled. Unless and until the over dues are paid the opposite party is not in a position to return the title deeds of the security property to the complainant. So the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1(series) and P2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R7 marked on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complainant availed two loans from the opposite party bank. One is agricultural loan and the other is business. First one was already closed by the bank by a settlement by paying Rs.4,000/- by the complainant and opposite party proposed a write off of Rs.2,292/- on 25.07.2006. Exts.P2 and P3 are the receipts of the same. 1 acre and 63 cents of land comprised in Survey No.161/1 of Kanjikuzhy village was in absolute possession and ownership of the complainant, mortgaged to the opposite party at the time of availing the agricultural loan on 12.11.1990. The complainant and the opposite party admitted all the above matters. But the only disputed thing is that whether the business loan availed by the complainant is by virtue of the security of the title deed of the complainant of 1 acre 63 cents of land. The complainant examined as PW1 and he delivered that the business loan is not cleared and he is regularly repaying the same in every month. Ext.P1(series) is the bill produced by the complainant for the repayment of the loan. He also stated that the business loan availed is not by the security of the landed property of 1.63 acres of land but by the security of his shop building, so he is entitled to get back the title deed. As per the evidence of DW1, the Manager of the Union Bank of India from which the complainant availed loan, his evidence shows that the loan amount is still pending as Rs.26,006/-. Exts.R1 and R2 are the copies of the promisory note signed by the complainant at the time of availing the business loan. In that document it is specifically written that 1.63 acres of land in Survey No.161/1 of the Kanjikuzhy Village is mortgaged to the bank in 12.11.1990 and the mortgage will continue to be security to the loan of Rs.25,000/- which is the business loan. Ext.R7 is the copy of the Loan Sanction Advice of the bank, in the same it is specifically written that the security of 1.63 acres of land is extended on 30.05.2000 for taking loan of Rs.25,000/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the Exts.R2 and R7 produced by the opposite party. As per the evidence of DW1, if the entire loan closed, they are ready to give back the title deed of the complainant because it is kept as a security. So we think that there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party bank. <br /> <br /> In the result, the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the Ist day of July, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />