G. Balagangadharan Nair, President - The complainant is a registered partnership firm with Mrs. R. Kalyani and V. Swaminathan as partners. They are also a Registered Small Scale Industry manufacturing Spun pipes. They had availed of several loans from the Trivandrum branch of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., on the security of 1 acre and 4 cents of property in Sy. No. 254/7 of East Kodungalloor, Alwaye owned by K.P. Lekshmikutty Amma, who was guarantor of the debts. The Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., was amalgamated with the Indian Overseas Bank on 19.2.1990. Under the scheme of amalgamation all the assets, liabilities and other civil obligations of the Bank of Tamil Nadu Ltd., become vested in the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

2. This firm had several disputes with the Bank relating to service charges, penal interest, DICGE premium, legal expenses etc., which according to the Bank involved a liability of Rs. 1.50 lakhs as on 1.1 0.1990. The guarantor was keen on disposing of this property which was worth Rs. 8 lakhs on 1.10.1990 but from which she was not getting any income. The debtors had offered another property owned by S. V. Das, the General Manager of the Company in lieu of the Alwaye property and requested the Bank to release the Alwaye property. Between November 1990 and April 1991 the debtors made three trips to Madras and met several high officials of the Bank and requested them to release the Alwaye property and also impressed on them that as the owner of the Alwaye property had no income and that she was losing heavily and that she was unable to sell it without a discharge from the Bank. Meanwhile the guarantor, K.P. Lekshmikutty Amma died in June 1991. Finding no response from the Bank the legal heirs of Lekshmikutty Amma wrote to the Bank on 2.8.1991 offering to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs as fixed deposit and pledge the deposit in favour of the Bank with a request to release the documents. The Bank wrote back on 23.12.1991 to say that their Central office was not in favour of substitution of security. Again between August 1991 and January 1992 they made 5 trips to Madras to pursuade the Bank's Central office to accept caste deposit as security and release the documents. For any prudent banker case security is always better than collateral security of landed property.

3. The complainant has asked for the following reliefs:

1. To direct the Bank of release the documents of the property after accepting case deposit.

2. Interest on Rs. 8,00,000/-(Value of the property) from 1.12.1990 to 31.1.1992 @ 18% with quarterly interest Rs. 1,82,849.00

3. Travelling expense for

8 trips to Madras at Rs. 700/-

per trip - Rs. 5600/- 3,000.00

Boarding & lodging and local

conveyance expenses for

58 days at Madras at Rs. 300/per day. Rs. 17400/- 23,000.00

4. Towards mental agony & Injury 1,00,000.00

____________

Rs. 3,05,849.00

4. We heard the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.

5. The petitioners are only seeking an amendment of the complaint, retaining its basic structure. The opposite parties perhaps being alive to this aspect has not filed any written objection to the application. In the nature of the application and the nature of the case we think that it could be allowed. However to be on the safe side and to avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, the complainant will file an amended complaint with the amendments incorporated and serve a copy on the opposite party. The Commission will scrutinise the amended complaint and pass the final orders. This will be done on or before 28.12.1992.

Amendment of Complaint allowed.