STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/593/2022 null THE MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - WEST HILL BRANCH AL ZAHRA PLAZA CHAKKAROTHUKULAM KOZHIKODE 673006 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus K V SAJURAJ PRESENT ADDRESS - 1/3444 SREENIVAS WESTHILL P O CALICUT 673005 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

THE MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK , B VASUDEVAN NAIR (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

K V SAJURAJ, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 593/2022 JUDGEMENT DATED : 28.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C. No. 308/2018 on the files of DCDRC, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANT:

The Manager, South Indian Bank, West Hill Branch, Al Zahra Plaza, Chakkarothukulum, Kozhikode – 673 006 (by Adv. B. Vasudevan Nair and Adv. Praveen C.P.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

K.V. Sajuraj, 1/3444, Sreenivas, West Hill P.O., Calicut – 673 005

(by Adv. K.B. Sivaramakrishnan and Adv. Akshay Kamath)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.308/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party by mortgaging the property of the complainant having title deed No.2832/1995. The original document was mortgaged with bank. The loan was closed on 12.08.2009. However, the title deed was not returned by the bank even after repeated requests. On 12.04.2018, the bank issued a letter to the complainant stating that the original title deed was misplaced in some other files and that the said documents would be returned at the earliest. On 19.06.2018, the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the bank demanding the return of the title deed. The complainant wanted to take education loan for the education of his son. However, since the title deed was not received from the bank, the complainant could not avail the loan from bank. The value of the property has been reduced considerably as the document was not available with the complainant. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed version admitting the mortgage by deposit of the title deed of the property of the complainant. However, it was contended that the document was misplaced. The opposite party also admitted that the document was not traceable and hence the document could not be given to the complainant. It was also contended that the complainant did not apply for the document till 2018. It was the duty of the complainant to collect the documents back as and when the loan was closed. The opposite party had also promised to issue a certified copy of the title deed.

There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 series were marked for the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to return the original title deed to the complainant within one month, failing which the opposite party had to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) with interest to the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to issue a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the original title deed was lost, if they were unable to return the original title deed. The District Commission further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party by depositing title deed No.2832/95 with the opposite party. It is also