STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/671/2016 REGIONAL MANAGER KERALA GRAMIN BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - NILESWAR BRANCH NILESWAR PO KASARAGOD 671314,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus C M MATHAI PRESENT ADDRESS - Retd.S I OF POLICE CHURATHIL HOUSE CHAYOTH PO HOSDURG TALUK,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 18/02/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.671/2016 ORDER DATED: 18.02.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.249/2013 on the files of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

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

Kerala Gramin Bank (North Malabar Gramin Bank), Nileswar Branch, Nileswar : PO -671 314, Kasaragode, Represented by its Regional Manager (by Adv. Gayathri.R.Krishnan, Adv. K.N.Justin & Adv. B Ajith)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

C.M Mathai, Retired Sub-Inspector of Police, Residing at Churathil

House, Chayoth PO, Hosdurg Taluk

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.249/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party in the year 2009 by depositing the title deeds. Thereafter, the complainant availed an agricultural loan from the opposite party. When the complainant was in need of the title deeds of his property having an extent of 95 cents, the opposite party was not prepared to return the documents, even though the complainant had cleared the loan availed by the complainant in the year 2009 by depositing the title deeds. Even though the act on the part of the opposite party in not returning the title deeds and other documents of the complainant even after closing the loan in the year 2010 would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is contended that the document was deposited only for the purpose of availing the first loan and not for the agricultural loan, as no document was required for availing the agricultural loan. Thereafter, the document was returned to the complainant only on 23.11.2012 after making payment of huge interest as demanded by the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed a written version contenting that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and another loan of Rs.50,000/- on 22.08.2009 by creating an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds of the property of the complainant having an extent of 95 cents in Resurvey No.246/1 of Kinanoor village. On 13.07.2010, the complainant closed the first loan. However, the second loan was pending till 23.11.2012. The charge created over the property was subsisting till 23.11.2012. On 20.11.2012, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.4,700/- which included the interest up to 30.09.2012. The outstanding amount in the second loan account was Rs. 51,448/- as on 23.11.2012, which was paid by the complainant on that date. The title deeds and other documents were returned to the complainant on 23.11.2012 itself. In the said circumstances, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked for the complainant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B12 were marked for the opposite party.

5. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the mental agony and sufferings and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings, to the complainant.

6. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is set ex-parte.

7.