DOF 8.6.2006 DOO.13.7.2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 13th day of July 2010 C.C.No.124/2006 Kunnumbroan Rajan, Sharannya Nivas, Kandam Kunnu Amsom, P.O.Nirmalagiri. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.Ranjith Kumar.T.C) Secretary, Tellicherry Primary co-op. Agricultural & Rural Development Bank, Thalassery. Opposite parties (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ramachandran) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return the title deed and back documents along with Rs.25, 000/-as compensation with cost to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he along with his wife had availed two loans from opposite party on Separate occasion by mortgaging the original title deed and back documents of their property in RS.No.23/3 and RS.25/1 of Kadamkunnu amsom and Ayithara desom in Kuthuparamba having an extent of 75 cents. The first loan was an agricultural loan having No.FRSSCRS/104 93-94 for a sum of Rs.13, 700/- and the other one was an irrigation loan having No.M1/30/96-97 for a sum of Rs.8000/-. For the purpose of medical treatment of his son, he was badly in need of money and hence he entered into an agreement for selling that property for a consideration of 1 ½ laks rupees and received Rs.50, 000/- as advance from the buyer and undertook to register the above property within one month. On 9.3.06 the complainant closed both the above two loans by making one time payment in full and opposite party issued receipts for the same also. On 10.3.06 the complainant had given an application for return of the above documents as directed by the opposite party and on receipt of the application the opposite party directed the complainant to approach after 8 days. After 8 days, when the complainant approached the opposite party for documents, they replied in a reckless manner that the documents cannot be traced out. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party several times for the document, but all are in vain. The complainant filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar and a copy was forwarded to opposite party. But the opposite party was not send a reply or returned the documents and hence the complainant had suffered so much of mental agony and pecuniary loss. All these were happened due to the deficient service of opposite party. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party has appeared and filed their version submitting that the opposite party informed their inability to trace out the document of the complainant. The opposite party bank is now working near town hall, Thalassery in a rented building and while shifting the bank from their old office to new rented building. Some files had changed from their arranged raw and hence it is find difficult to trace out the documents. The opposite party bank has explained the above facts and circumstances to the complainant and that they shall arrange and give the certified copy of the titled deeds after complying the legal formalities, if the title deed is not trace out and even now the opposite party bank is ready for the same. The complaint is liable to be dismissed since the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case as per section 69 and 100 of Kerala co-op. society’s act. Thereafter the opposite party has produced the certified copy of the documents along with paper publication before the Forum. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination and ext.A1 to A6. Issue Nos. 1 The opposite party contended that since the complainant is a member of the opposite party, the forum has no jurisdiction to try the case as per section 69 and 100 of Kerala co-op. society’s act. Admittedly the complainant is a member of the opposite party. But in Secretary, Thirumurugan co. operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalith the Hon’ble Apex court held that the above said section of the act has not ousted the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The remedy under consumer protection act, 1986 was in addition to and not in derogation of other remedies available and hence the complaint is maintainable before the forum and the same was reported in 2004(1) CPR 35 SC and we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer and the Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and the issue No.1 is found infavour of the complainant. Issue Nos.2 to 4 The admission of the opposite party along with the documents produced by the complainant proves that the complaint had already closed the two loans availed by him. The opposite party admits that the documents were not traced out. It is true that even though the loan was closed, the opposite party was unable to give back the documents. The Ext.A5 and A6 documents shows that they have filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar of co. operative Societies and informed the same to the opposite party. But opposite party has not denied this. The opposite party has produced the paper publication and the certified copy of the document No.26572/93 before the Forum. The complainant deposited the original title deed of his property with the opposite party and availed loan. The opposite party admits that these occurred failure on their part to return the original title deed which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party. The opposite party has a bounden duty to release that title deed at the time of closure of the loan. The opposite party ought to have released the title deed. The complainant contended that, he entered into a contract of sale agreement which was cancelled due to non-availability of original title deed. But no documents are produced before us to prove this contention. But we accept the contention of the complainant that non-availability of the original title deed has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. More over, the certified copy produced by the opposite party could not be equated to the original title deed and the possibility of doubting the genuineness of the title of the property cannot also be ruled out. Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party and so we assess Rs.10, 000/- as compensation for all these inconvenience caused to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to collect the certified copy of the title deed and paper publication produced by the opposite party before the Forum. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1000/-as cost of these proceedings. So the opposite party has to pay Rs.10, 000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation along with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.10, 000/- will attract 4% interest from the date of order and the complainant is entitle to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 to A3. Receipts issued by OP A4.Share receipt issued by OP A5.Copy of the letter dt.20.4.06 sent to OP A6.Postal AD Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
