STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/795/2015 THE MANAGER CITY UNION BANK LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - CHAVAKKAD ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus P A VARGHESE PRESENT ADDRESS - THEKKINIYATH PANTHAMPULAKKAN HOUSE CHEMBUKAVU THRISSUR ,KERALA.

JOY PRESENT ADDRESS - CHITTILAPILLY HOUSE CHITTIOLAPPILY VILLAGER THRISSUR ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 18/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.795/2015 JUDGEMENT DATED: 18.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.552/2010 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. : MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN APPELLANT:

The Manager, City Union Bank, Chavakkad Branch, Chavakkad, Thrissur (by Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1. P.A. Varghese, S/o Anthony, Thekkiniyath, Panthampulakkan House,

Chembukavu, Thrissur

(by Adv. Stephen Rozario)

2. Joy, S/o Rappai, Chittilappilly House, Chittilappilly Village, Thrissur (by Adv. K.P. Krishnan)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER st The 1 opposite party in C.C.No.552/2010 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short) is the appellant.

2. Complaint was filed by one Varghese before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties 1 and 2.

3. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:

nd The complainant and the 2 opposite party were friends and in view of the cordial nd relationship prevailing between the complainant and the 2 opposite party, the complainant had mortgaged 62 cents of his property as per deed No.4792/1978 of SRO, Thrissur for the nd st purpose of availing a loan to the business run by the 2 opposite party from the 1 opposite party. For that purpose, the complainant had also executed a registered Power of Attorney in nd favour of the 2 opposite party. Bank had expressed their inability to sanction the loan on the reason that the complainant is a person aged 79 years and residing beyond the jurisdictional limits of the bank, the complainant was constrained to cause execution of a nd nd Power of Attorney in favour of the 2 opposite party. The 2 opposite party had also assured that he will pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to the nd complainant. By virtue of the Power of Attorney, the 2 opposite party had availed a loan st of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the 1 opposite party as OSC 31/98. For st sanctioning the loan, as requested by the 1 opposite party, the complainant had entrusted st the original title deed with the 1 opposite party,the Power of Attorney, basic title deeds, encumbrance certificate, tax paid receipt, possession certificate, sketch pertaining to the nd property, rent deed and the license of the jewellery owned by the 2 opposite party. The complainant had also subscribed the signature in all the documents pertaining to the loan in his capacity as the owner of the property.

nd

4. The 2 opposite party had also availed another loan Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) as OSC 40/1999 on the strength of the title deed of the complainant. A dispute nd arose between the complainant and the 2 opposite party. So on 04.12.2000. The st complainant had cancelled the Power of Attorney which fact was communicated to the 1 st opposite party. He had also requested the 1 opposite party to return the documents. But the bank told the complainant that the title deeds will be returned only after closing the loan st transaction. It was also assured by the 1 opposite party that the complainant will be nd informed when the loan is closed by the 2 opposite party and the title deeds will be returned only to the complainant being the owner.

nd

5. On several occasions the complainant had requested the 2 opposite party to close the loan transaction and return the title deeds