KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.  293/10

JUDGMENT DATED:  22.9.2011

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                 :  MEMBER

APPELLANT

Kuriakose

S/o Varghese

Edattu House, Vadavathoor P.O.,

Vijayapuram Village, Kottayam.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri.T.L. Sreeram)

Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.      State Bank of Travancore

          Rep. by its Regional Manager,

          Regional Office, Collectorate P.O.,

          Kottayam – 2

2.      The Branch Manager

State Bank of Travancore,

Vadavathoor Branch.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri.G.S. Kalkura)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL  MEMBER

Appellant is the complainant and respondents are the opposite parties in CC No. 175/08 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in returning the title deed of the property which was hand over to the opposite party bank for availing loan of Rs. 75,000/-. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying and disputing the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the subject title deed No.2266 of 1986 of Kottayam SRO was handed over to the complainant/ loanee through the opposite party’s Counsel Mr. A.V. George. The opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

2.      Before the Forum below both the parties filed proof affidavits Ext. A1, A2 and B1 were marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated: 16.11.09 dismissing the complaint in
CC No. 175/08. Hence the present appeal.

3.      We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on A1 letter dated: 22.9.2000 issued by Adv. A.V. Geroge to the President, Manganam Co.operative Bank and argued for the position that A1 would belie the case of the opposite parties that the title deed was hand over to the complainant on 2-6-2000. He also disputed the correctness of B1 acknowledgement said to have been issued by the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and submitted his arguments based on the acknowledgement dated: 2.6.2000.

4.      The points that arise for consideration are:

1.                Whether the Forum below can be justified in making a comparison of the disputed signature of the complainant in B1 acknowledgment with the admitted hand writing and signature of the complainant in his Vakkalath.

2.                  Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.09 passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in CC No. 175/08.

5.  Points 1 and 2 :  There is no dispute that the appellant/ complainant availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- under cash credit and medium term loan.. The complainant deposited the original settlement deed No. 2266 of 1986. The aforesaid loan transaction was closed through the decree passed by the Munsiff Court, Kottayam in O.S 929/98. Admittedly, the opposite party State Bank of Travancore, Vadavathoor Branch was bound to return the aforesaid title deed to the appellant/complainant (loanee).

6.      The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/opposite party bank failed to return the said title deed which was deposited with the 2^nd opposit