STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/91/2019 ABU A PRESENT ADDRESS - RAHAMATH MANZIL,VADAKKUKARA,UMAYANALLOOR(PO),KOLLAM-

691589 ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus MAYYANADU REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - MAYYANADU(PO),KOLLAM-691303 ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 08/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.91/2019 JUDGMENT DATED : 08.07.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Abu A., S/o Aliyarkunju, Rahath Manzil, Vadkkumkara, Kizhakkencherry, Mayyanadu Village, Umayanalloor P.O., Kollam –

691 589 (by Advs. Sunil Narayan & Nithya S.)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY:

Secretary/Manager representing Mayyanad Regional Co-operative Bank,

No.94, Mayyanadu P.O., Kollam – 691 303

(by Advs. Jani A. & Nisa Fazil)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complainant filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party.

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

The complainant and his wife had availed a loan from opposite parties by mortgaging their landed property comprised in resurvey No.162/18 in block number 27 of Mayyanadu Village. The sale deed No.3433/1993 of the SRO, Kottiyam was handed over to the opposite party for the purpose of availing the loan. The loan was closed, but the opposite party did not return the original title deed. They stated that the loan availed by the complainant is a continuous mortgage loan for 12 years. After the expiry of 12 years, the complainant had approached the opposite party. But the title deed was not returned. The opposite party had also assured the complainant that they will provide further loan without any original title deed. They had effected publication of notices in daily newspapers by inviting objections from the public that the title deed of the complainant is lost and disregarding the absence of title deed they indent to grant loan to the complainant.

3. On seeing the notice, the complainant had approached the opposite party and made enquiries. At that point of time, the opposite party informed the complainant that the title deed will be searched out and handed over to the complainant. But so far, the title deed has not been returned. On 01.07.2019 when the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded for the return of the title deed, the opposite party stated that the title deed is missing. The opposite party is entitled to keep the title deed in safe custody. The complainant had to suffer much agony and hardship on account of the unfair trade practice conducted by the opposite party in not returning the title deed. He would seek for a direction to the opposite party to return the original title deed No.3433/1993 of SRO, Kottiyam. The complainant would also seek for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and a direction to issue a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the title deed has been lost and hence the opposite party is unable to return the title deed.

4. On receipt of notice, an Advocate had filed vakalath on behalf of the opposite party. But no version has been filed by the opposite party. There was no representation on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exhibits A1 to A4 were also marked. Though the opposite party was provided with opportunity for cross-examination of the complainant, the opposite party did not avail the aforesaid opportunity.

5. Heard. Perused the records.

6. Now the points that arise for determination are:

1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled