D.O.F:16/06/2020
D.O.O:30/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.59/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of November, 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
- Shridevi. K
-
Maniyoor House
P.O.Urdur, Kasaragod-671543:Complainant
Mob: 9447734923
- Shivaprakash M.K
Maniyoor House
P.O.Urdur, Kasaragod-671543
The Manager,
Kasaragod Primary Co-operative
Agricultural& Rural Development Bank: Opposite Party
Ltd; No.FF 113, Kasaragod, Mulleria Branch
(Adv:-Sri.Jithesh Babu.P.k)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed for return of title deed mortgaged and compensation alleging service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is that the complainants obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party bank, by depositing the original of a will document dated:10.03.1993. The loan was closed on 01.12.2018. But the original Will document was not returned by the opposite party, in spite of several requests. When the complainants filed petition before the DLSA, Kasaragod raising the issue, the opposite party did not appear for answering. Due to the negligence and service deficiency of the opposite party, the complainants suffered mental agony and hardships, apart from the loss of an amount of Rs.18,376/-. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to return the title deed mortgaged and to pay Rs.18,376/- towards the amount lost and Rs.85,000/-, towards the compensation and costs.
The opposite party entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed written version. As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable. The opposite party admitted that the complainants availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party bank, by depositing the original of a will document dated:10.03,1993. The loan was closed on 01.12.2018. But when the loan was subsisting, one Padmini filed a criminal case against the complainants, alleging forgery and as a part of investigation in Cr.380/ 2016, the Adhur Police seized the original Will document from the office of the opposite party. When the loan was closed by the complainants, the opposite party caused to send a regd.Notice to the SHO Adhur to return the document seized and it was informed that the document seized was produced before the JFCM, Kasaragod. The opposite party made several attempts to get the document from the police and court authorities. These facts are within the knowledge of the complainants. When the complainants filed PLP before the DLSA, it was apprised that the original document is not in the custody of the opposite party bank. It is noteworthy to state that it was only because of the criminal case filed by one of the family members of the complainants, the document was seized by the police. The opposite party is ready and willing to hand over the original will document to the complainants as and when they receive the same from the police or from the court. There is no negligence or service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 are marked. The Ext.A1 is the order in PLP NO. 64/2019 on the file of DLSA, Kasaragod. Ext.A2 is the Final report in the Cr.380/2016 of Adhur Police.
From the side of the Opposite Party, no oral evidence is adduced but certain document Ext. B1to B5 are marked. Ext. B1 is a copy of the letter dated 09.04.2019 sent by the opposite paty to the SHO Adhur. Ext. B2 is a copy of the reply issued by the SHO Adhur, Ext. B3 is a copy of the letter dated 15.11.2016 issued by the SHO Adhur to the opposite party, Ext .B4 is the Final report in in the Cr.380/2016 of Adhur Police. Ext B5 is a copy of the Will document.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that even though the loan was closed on 01.12.2018 the original Will document deposited was not returned by the opposite party in spite of several requests. Due to the negligence and service deficiency of the opposite party, the complainants suffered mental agony and hardships apart from the loss of an amount of Rs.18,376/-. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to return the title deed mortgaged and to pay Rs.18,376/- towards the amount lost and Rs.85,000/-, towards the compensation and costs.
The Opposite Parties submit that when the loan was subsisting, one Padmini filed a criminal case against the complainants, alleging forgery and as a part of investigation in Cr.380/2016, the Adhur Police seized the original Will document from the office of the opposite party. They made several attempts to get the document from the police and court authorities. These facts are within the knowledge of the complainants. It was only because of the criminal case filed by one of the family members of the complainants, the document was seized by the police. The opposite party is ready and willing to hand over the original will document to the complainants as and when they receive the same from the police or from the court. There is no negligence or service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
During the pendency of the case, the document of Will is got returned from the authorities by the opposite party and the same is duly handed over to the complainants. The above fact is admitted by the complainant during evidence.
It is revealed during evidence that it was only because of the criminal case filed by one of the family members of the complainants, the document was seized by the police. The document was got returned by the authorities only after the completion of the investigation. The opposite party is not responsible for the above seizure. It is needless to say that the proceedings of the police or court are not under the control of the opposite party, which is a primary co-operative bank. The documents Ext. B1 to B4 would show that the opposite party took earnest effort to get the document returned.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this commission is of the view that the complainant failed to prove any negligence or service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1:- Order in PLP No.64/2019
A2:- Final Report of Adhur Police
B1:-Copy of the Letter
B2:-Copy of the reply
B3:- Copy of the letter dtd: 15.11.2016
B4:- Final report
B5:- Copy of the Will document.
Witness Examined
Pw1:- Shivaprakash.M.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
