KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED Vs. THOMAS ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 24.3.2004 passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. A. 67/01. The complaint in the said OP was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellants/opposite parties claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in returning the document which was pledged with the opposite party by way of security. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that a sum of Rs. 1,47,077 was due from the complainant under another loan transaction namely NCL -262 and so the opposite party KSFE can very well exercise general lien provided under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act. The opposite parties denied the alleged deficiency in service. The requested for the dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complaint was examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8 documents were marked. The Manager of the opposite party KSFE was examined as RW1 and Ext. B1 and B2 documents were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order finding the opposite parties deficient in service. Thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000 with interest @ 10% from 18.7.1998 till the date of payment and cost of Rs. 500 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the opposite party KSFE can exercise general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the KSFE in returning the documents which was pledged by the complainant for getting the chitty amount due under chitty No. 32/93/A -14. Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to dismiss the complaint in OP A. 67/01. The points that arise for consideration are: