Back
AJITH KUMAR D., RADHAKRISHNAN K. R.
Secretary Eranad Pradhamika Sahakarana Karshika Vikasana Bank – Appellant
Versus
N. P. Muhammed Kutty Haji – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 398/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity).
2. The District Commission had allowed the complaint as per the order dated 30.06.2016 and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the complainant with a default clause to pay interest @ 12% interest per annum from the date of pronouncement of the order.
3. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant and his mother had availed a loan from the 1st opposite party in 1995-96. On 21.03.2003 the entire amount covered by the loan was repaid by the complainant. When the title deed pledged with the opposite party was sought to be returned the opposite parties had declined to return the same. The complainant, on account of his financial crisis had proposed to sell out the property and for that purpose the loan was repaid by utilizing the amount received in advance. Due to the non-availability of title deed the sale could not be materialized. So the complainant had
(1) Return of title Deed – The materials on record would convincingly prove that the complainant had repaid the entire amount and it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to return the t....
Loss of Sale Deed - There is no doubt that the Petitioner Bank was responsible for the loss of the Sale Deed. The Petitioner being entrusted with the document relating to the Property of the Responde....
Home Loan – Reduction in sale consideration, though indicative of financial prejudice, cannot be wholly attributed to loss of Title Documents or quantified solely on the basis of sale documents.
Legal Title - The legal title of the complainant does stand compromised on account of the loss of the original documents by opposite party 1.
The District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing conditions contrary to Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, which mandates relief for deficiency of service.
Consumer Dispute – By no stretch of imagination, the receipt of amount more than Rs.20,000/- without cheque is not relevant issue for adjudication of the consumer disputes between the respondent and ....
Consumer complaints are maintainable in consumer courts despite arbitration clauses, reaffirming consumer protection under the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
