V.MANIVANNA NAICKER Vs. CHAIRMAN, UNITED COMMERCIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 The details of complaint in brief as follows : Complainant availed agricultural loan of Rs.24,000/- from 3rd opposite party in the year 1988 by depositing the title deeds of his property as security and after clearing the debts when the 3rd opposite party was demanded to release the title deeds through letter dated 23.4.08 without returning the documents, the 3rd opposite party wrote a letter on 5.5.08 stating that the complainant repaid the loan amount alone and issued ?No due certificate? and relating to the documents it is stated it got mixed with other documents and to furnish details regarding the date of deposit of title deed etc. Hence a lawyer notice was issued on 12.05.08 and a reply was received on 12.6.08 by putting the blame of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming direction on the 3rd opposite party to return the original title deeds of properties deposited at the time of availing the loan pass an award Rs.20,20,000/- for deficiency of service and for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as costs.

(2.) On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 written version filed by the 3rd opposite party in which it is stated that the 3rd opposite party branch was shifted from another place to the present place and also several changes had been made in the present premises for the upgradation of branch to CBS system and during the shifting of the premises the complainant?s title deeds seems to have been misplaced and got mixed up with other papers and the documents could not be traced out and informing the same to the complainant and the 3rd opposite party was ready to issue certificate to that effect and arrange to get the certified copies and to return the documents as soon as it is traced out. The complainant?s son alone demanding heavy amounts challenging the officials of the bank and the complainant did not turn up for talks. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties since there is no loss of damages caused to the complainant. They cannot claim any monetary benefit on that basis complaint to be dismissed.

(3.) Both sides have filed their proof affidavits and the complainant has relied upon the documents Exhibit A1 to A5 and no documents are marked for opposite parties.