Decided on May 13,2009

Br Manager, A Pradesh Bank Appellant
P V Joy Das Respondents


- (1.)THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.12.06 in OP. No. A171/06 of CDRF. Alappuzha wherein and whereby the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation and cost of Rs. 1000/ - aiong with a further direction to release the title deed of the complainant with immediate effect. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite party has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of order of the forum below.
(2.)THE complainant who is a fisherman by profession has approached the opposite party to get a loan for purchasing a 15 HP out board engine and as per the security of 3 cents of property which belongs to him and 2.15 cents of property which belongs to his mother an amount of Rs. 55,000/ - was sanctioned on 2.12.97 and even though he had closed the loan on 1.6.2001, the title deeds of the property mentioned above were not returned to him and it was only after several requests that the opposite party returned the title deed of the complainant' s mother's property and that complainant's title deed was not returned. The complainant alleges that he had the chance of getting a loan from the National Fisherman Housing Scheme to construct a house and the title deed of his property was very much essential for the same. It is the further case of the complainant that though the opposite party had written letters to the Deputy Director Fisheries that the title deed was with the opposite party and the same was not returned on a subsequent occasion the opposite party compelled him to accept a loan of Rs. 15,000/ - to be paid back in 35 instalments with 12% interest. Even though the complainant was ready to close the loan the opposite party was not amenable to return the title deed under one guise or another and hence alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed for directions to the opposite party to ret urn the title deed of his property along with compensation and costs.
(3.)THOUGH the opposite party was set ex -parte on an IA filed by the opposite party, the ex -parte order was set aside. The opposite party filed version contending that the allegations in the complaint are false and vexacious and that though the complainant had closed the loan account on 1/6/01 he had availed another loan of Rs. 15,000/ - on 4.8.01 pledging the property and that when the complainant completely repays the loan the opposite party is ready and willing to give back the documents. However, it was admitted that at the time of sanctioning the loan on 2.12.97. the title deed of the property of the complainant and his mother were submitted to the opposite party and that only the title deed of the mother's property was returned at the time of closing the loan. Contending that there was no deficiency in service the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the documents of the complainant which were marked as Ext. A1 to A12.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.