By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that complainant had approached ICICI bank for availing cash credit for his business.  After initial deliberations with the bank officials the 2^nd opposite party issued a letter (ICKB/SMEG-BBG-2007-2008/CALS) dated 29.10.2007, informing the complainant that the credit facility to the tune of Rs.one million has been sanctioned.  Opposite party No.2 requested to the complainant that if the conditions of loan were acceptable a duplicate copy of the letter duly signed must be sent to the authorized official in token of acceptance.  As per direction the signed copy of the letter along with all the documents in connection with the cash credit facility was sent to the 2^nd opposite party.  Both the opposite parties then informed to the complainant that the loan amount would be deposited in his account within one week on condition that complainant would have deposited an amount of Rs.16854/- by way of cheque as a loan processing charge to the bank.  Complainant paid loan processing charge of Rs.16854/- by way of cheque No.805455 dated 30.10.2007 drawn on ICICI bank and the cheque was encashed by the bank.  Complainant had pledged all the documents of 15 cents of land located at Chevayur, with the bank as security for getting credit facility.  The 1^st opposite party had sent an authorized person to investigate about the property.  After satisfaction of the investigator 2nd opposite party issued credit arrangement as per local opinion that 15 cents of land given as security is in the name of his late father.  It was scrutinized by Advocate K.M. Mathew and he had stated that if the originals of the relevant documents as listed in part F of the title report submitted by the Advocate, in a manner required by law it will satisfy the requirement of creation of equitable mortgage.  Legal opinion further says that Sri. Velayudhan, who is the late father of the complainant, has got clear, valid, absolute and marketable title in the property.  Even after receipt of the land processing charges in full, the opposite party continued to ask for some documents or other pertaining to the land.  In the legal opinion nothing was mentioned that the offered land is insufficient.  Finally opposite party demanded the legal heirs certificate.  It is also submitted by the complainant that even after submitting the legal heirs certificate, opposite party refused to disburse the sanctioned loan amount.  Hence the complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party to return the loan processing charge of Rs.16854/- and a compensation of Rs.60,000/- along with cost.

            After serving notice, opposite party called absent and set exparte. 

Complainant filed affidavit and he was examined as PW1.  Ext. A1 to A4 were also marked on the side of the complainant.

From the evidence of the complainant and from the Exts. A1 to A4, complainant’s case is proved.

In the result petition is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to return the processing charge of Rs.16854/-  and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with a cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant.  Comply the order within 30 days of receiving the copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Court this the 27^th day of February 2009.

                                    Sd/-President                                  Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1            Photocopy of credit arrangement letter dated 29.10.2007.

A2            Photocopy of title report dated 30.01.2008.

A3            Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 21.5.2008 with postal acknowledgement and

            Postal receipt.

A4            Photocopy of reply notice to Ext. A3 lawyer notice.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1            Anilkumar. P.K., S/o. Velayudhan.P.K. (Late), “Anagha”, Ponnayamkode Kunnummal, P.O.Chevayur.

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None.

-/True copy/-

Sd/- President

(Forwarded/by Order)

Senior Superintendent.