STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/463/2017 KUDAMALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - NO-93, KUDAMALOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM- 686017 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus K N KESAVAN PRESENT ADDRESS - KEEZHUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR.P.O, AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 14/05/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 463/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14.05.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 349/2015 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Kudamaloor Service Co-op Bank Ltd. No. 93, Kudamaloor P.O., Kottayam-686 017 represented by its Secretary.

(By Adv. Surin George Ipe and Adv. D.R. Rajesh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

K.N. Kesavan, S/o late Narayanan, Keezhuchirayil House, Kudamaloor P.O., Aymanam Village, Kottayam. (By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 349/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short, “the District Commission”).

2. The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party on 14.01.1966 mortgaging his property by deposit of title deed No. 1999/1959 of the SRO, Kottayam. In 1970, the above said loan was closed by making payment of the entire amount covered by the loan and thereafter, the complainant requested to return the title deed of his property. However, the title deed was found missing and in the circumstances, the opposite party had given a certified copy of the title deed with a letter stating that the original title deed would be returned as and when the said document was traced out. However, the title deed was not returned for years. In the said circumstances, the complainant in the year 2015 sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party requesting the opposite party to return the title deed of the property of the complainant. However, the title deed was not returned. In the said circumstances, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed a version admitting the availing of loan by the complainant mortgaging the property by deposit of title deed. It is further admitted that the title deed could not be traced out and hence the original title deed could not be returned to the complainant even after closing the loan account. However, a certified copy of the title deed was given to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, the proof affidavit was filed by both sides.

Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked for the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked for the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. The District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6. The opposite party raised a contention before the District Commission that the complaint was barred by limitation. However, the District Commission, after evaluating the evidence, found that the complaint was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action in this case was a continuing cause of action.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if at all it is admitted that the complaint was not barred by limitation as the cause of action was a continuing cause of action, the Consumer Commissions had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Consumer Protection Act was not in force when the cause