By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to get back the title deed pledged as a security in the Opposite Party's bank.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a member of Respondent bank availed loan in the account NLP 26. The Opposite Party lodged a criminal case against the Complainant under section 420 I.P.C in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta and the Complainant found guilty under section 420 IPC. The Complainant went on appeal and the case was compounded and acquitted in that ground on 09.06.2010.

3. The request of the Complainant to get back the title deed kept as a security was not responded by the Opposite Party. The complaint filed is against the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party for the non releasing of the documents pledged as the security in the Opposite Party's bank. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give back the pledged documents, Janmam purchase certificate, Tax receipt, Pattayam assignment proceedings and possession certificate.

4. The Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The issuance of bank loan to the Complainant during 1987 was pledging the documents as admitted. The Complainant along with other loanees deposited as security the documents which are fabricated and false with the intention to cheat bank. The Opposite Party initiated legal proceedings and Police case was registered against the Complainant and other loanees under section 420 IPC. The documents were seized by the Police as the properties and case was charged against the Complainant and other loanees. The trial count convicted the Complainant under section 420 IPC the case was later went on appeal. Mean while under the debt relief scheme the liability of the Complainant was waived. The offense leveled against the Complainant was compoundable being the loan amount disbursed with interest was written off by Debt Relief scheme of the Government. The Opposite Party's bank did not stand in the way of compounding the offence and the Complainant was set free. The finding of the lower court the documents are fabricated and false still persists the trial court finding is not overruled reversed the order of the Lower court.

5. The documents pledged for loan are having the taint of false and fabricated. A mere compounding of the offense does not wipe out the findings of the Lower Court and the documents are false and fabricated.

6. The Complainant herself approached the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court

for the return of the documents pledged but it was rejected but in fact those are suppressed by the Complainant. The intension of the Complainant is to get in possession of the fabricated and false documents the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party not releasing the documents pledged.

2. Relief and cost.

8. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant and Exts.A1 to A4. The Opposite Party has not tendered any evidence in this case. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also taken in to consideration.

9. The dispute in this case is in respect of the non releasing of the documents pledged by the Complainant in the Opposite Party's bank. It is evident from the materials on records that the documents were pledged in Opposite Party's bank and case was registered against the Complainant in the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kalpetta No.241/02. The Complainant, the accused is convicted under section 420 I.P.C the documents pledged by the Complainant are arrayed as exhibits genuiness of the documents pledged by the Complainant is unestablished. The case of the Opposite Party in the Hon'ble Chief Judical Magistrate Court, Kalpetta was that the documents pledged in the bank are false and fabricated. After conviction the Complainant went on appeal and the case was compounded. The plea of the Opposite Party is that the documents are forged and fabricated. The land property detailed in the deeds belongs to forest. The authenticity and genuines of the document produced are in question. The plea of the Complainant that the application of the Complainant for return of the document from the Hon'ble Chief Judical Magistrate Court is unestablished. Since the documents are exhibits involved in the criminal offense alleged. The receival of the documents from the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Sulthan Bathery by the Opposite Party's bank and to return it to the Complainant cannot be considered a deficiency in service.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th May 2011.

Date of filing:24.11.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Indira. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Application. dt:10.08.2010.

A2. Copy of Judgment. dt:09.06.2010.

A3. Copy of Petition. dt:09.06.2010.

A4. Copy of Judgment. dt:17.07.2007

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.