Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Appeal Nos. 226, 235 of 2013. Case: A. Farook and Ors. Vs Syndicate Bank and Ors.. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberAppeal Nos. 226, 235 of 2013
Party NameA. Farook and Ors. Vs Syndicate Bank and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Dhananjayan, Advocate and For Respondents: M. Sugadhakumar and Dhanya Sugadhan, Advocates
JudgesP.Q. Barkath Ali, J. (President) and V.V. Jose, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationII (2015) CPJ 44 (Ker.)
Judgement DateJanuary 14, 2015
CourtKerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

P.Q. Barkath Ali, J. (President)

  1. Both these appeals arise out of order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC. No. 178/2011 dated 31.1.2013. A. 235/13 is filed by the opposite parties and A. 226/2013 is filed by the complainant. The case of the complainants as testified by PW1, 1st complainant and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainants 1 and 2 availed an overdraft facility from opposite party No. 1 Bank for which complainant No. 3 stood as a guarantor by mortgaging the original deed No. 2108/2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Koduvayur along with other documents. Complainants approached the 1st opposite party for clearing the outstanding dues during June 2011. The 1st opposite party was reluctant to close the account and return the original title deeds. On 11.8.2011 the bank informed complainants that the title deeds were misplaced and it will be traced out within a week. Even thereafter 1st opposite party did not close the loan account or returned the title deeds. To the lawyer notice dated 26.8.2011, 1st opposite party sent a reply admitting the loss of the title deeds. By the loss of the title deeds complainants have suffered heavy loss. There is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 and directing the opposite parties to issue certified copies with proper indemnity bond.

  2. First opposite party is Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Palakkad. 2nd opposite party is Manager of its Head Office, Manipal. They filed their version before the Forum contending thus. The complaint is not maintainable as the loan is still pending. It is admitted that the original deeds submitted by the complainants were misplaced. The opposite parties are prepared to make available a certified copy of the documents at the expenses of the opposite parties. Complainant has not suffered any loss. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

  3. First complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to Ext. A4 were marked on their side, and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Ext. B1 to Ext. B7 were marked before the Forum. On the side of the complainants PWs2 and 3 were also examined. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to give a certified copy of the documents with proper endorsement...

To continue reading

Request your trial