The judgment emphasizes the importance of understanding the jurisdictional provisions of the relevant acts and the necessity of providing sufficient evidence to support claims in a complaint.

JUDGMENT

Mr. M.K. Abdulla Sona, Presiding Member - This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in CC No. 190/08 order dated 12.8.2008. The appellants are the complainants who preferred this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below to dismiss the complaint with cost. The respondent is the opposite party Cooperative Bank.

2. In short, the appellants except 1st complainant, other complainants are the LARs of the 1st complainant those who impleaded due to the death of the 1st complainant. They are appellants before this commission.

3. The complainant's case is that she availed a loan from opposite party bank and repaid the entire amount with interest. But 1st opposite party has not returned the title deeds mortgaged with the opposite party. The complainant's allegation is that as the mortgaged deeds were not released she could not partition the property. The complainant's further allegation is that to pay of the loan, she tried to obtain a take over loan and that was also denied by opposite party. Hence the complaint.

4. The opposite party filed written version and contended that this complaint is maintainable either in law and facts. The son of the complainant Mr. Sunil Kumar has taken a loan having No. O.L. No. 249/03 and an amount of Rs. 90,060 is due on that amount. The same person also took another loan having No. OL 1488/01 in which an amount of Rs. 1,07,690 is due. In both these loans the complainant mortgaged the same property and hence it is impossible to release the title deeds. The further allegation of the complainant is that she tried to obtain a take over loan and also due to the action of the opposite party she could not partition the property are denied by the opposite party.

5. The Forum below taken two points for considerations:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

2. Reliefs and costs.

6. The evidence consisted of oral testimony of the complainant who examined as PW1 and also examined as PW2. Exts. P1 to P5 are marked from the part of the opposite party. No oral or documentary evidence from the opposite party.

7. The Forum below considered that the complainant was having a case that she already repaid the entire loan amount with interest properly. For showing the said contention the complainant produced Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 receipts. On perusal of Ext. P3 and P4 it is seen that the complainant had paid some amount. But there is nothing mentioned in Ext. P3 and P4 that the loan was closed. The said loan closed there is clear mentioning of the discharge of loan. While taking evidence; PW1 admitted that the complainant is a mortgagor in two loans as a security. According to PW1 the entire loans were closed. But there is no evidence produced to show that the loans were closed. For the evidence without closing the liability towards the bank it is impossible to release the title deeds of the property which was mortgaged in other loans. In the result, the complaint fails and the same is dismissed without cost.

8. The appellants preferred this appeal from the above impugned order. They prayed to allow this appeal by this commission and also to be allowed the complaint.

9. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The 1st appellant is Sunil Kumar appeared in person on his behalf and on behalf of other appellants. But there is no representation for the respondent/opposite party. The 1st appellant, party in person argued his appeal on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not in accordance with the law and evidence; it is liable to be dismissed. The appellants submitted that the opposite party bank did not release the title deed on a reason that the 1st opposite party did not pay the entire loan amount already she taken. He submitted that the bank have no right to keep in their custody the title deed of another loanee due to the reason that the 3rd opposite party loanee committed dues in her loan. It