Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/09/382

N AJITH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER,SBI - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2010

ORDER


KOZHIKODECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 382
1. N AJITH KUMARSUKRUTHAM,VADAKKEKATPARAMBA,THIRUTHIYAD,KOZHIKODE-4KOZHIKODEKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. THE MANAGER,SBIMALAPPPARAMBA BRANCH,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE-20KOZHIKODEKerala2. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER,SBIRASMECCC,KALLAI ROAD,KOZHIKODEKozhikodeKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 09 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By L. Jyothikumar, Member:
 
            The complainant had availed a housing loan from 1st opposite party with loan No. 10621495710 in the year 2002. IInd opposite party is the Head office of the 1st opposite party. At the time of availing loan the complainant had submitted the original plan of the house and original plan of the site. Photocopy of these documents were also submitted before the opposite party-1 with other documents requested by the bank. The complainant duly discharged the entire loan liability on 20-3-2009. Complainant had approached opposite party-1 and opposite party-2 several times and also sent notice by requesting to return back the original plan of the house, original plan of the site and photocopy of these documents. But the bank did not return back the documents. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not returning back the documents after closing the loan.
 
            Notices sent to the opposite parties were served. Both opposite parties were present and their versions filed by stating that they have not collected the original documents. So they denied the liability. When the case was posted for cross examination of the complainant, both the opposite parties were not present hence called absent and set exparte. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. From the evidence and exhibits the case of the complainant is proved. Before filing the complaint he had sent a notice to both opposite parties. No reply was given. Several times the complainant had approached opposite parties to get back the documents. Even though the complainant had informed the deficiency in service the opposite party did not take any steps to redress the grievances. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that the opposite parties were deficient in their service.
 
            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1500/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
 
Pronounced in the open court this the 9th day of March 2010.
 
            Sd/-PRESIDENT                     Sd/-MEMBER             Sd/-MEMBER
 
APPENDIX
 
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
 
A1. Photocopy of Pass book.
A2. Photocopy of Regd. letter dt. 28-5-09
A3. Photocopy of postal receipt.
 
Documents exhibited for the opposite party.
            Nil.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Ajithkumar.N. (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party.
                        None
 
                                                            Sd/- President
 
                        // True copy //
 
(Forwarded/By order)
 
 
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

Jayasree Kallat, MA.,, Member G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,, PRESIDENT L Jyothikumar, LLB.,, Member