State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
E.L. Francis vs . Regional Manager, on 18 January, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/157 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/11/2012 in Case No. CC/08/559 of District Trissur) 1. E.L.FRANCIS M/S THREE STAR INDUSTRIES,THANGAMONY JUNCTIN,KOORKANCHERRY.P.O, THRISSUR KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. REGIOAL MANAGER,SBT REGIONAL OFFICE,PARAMEKKAVU,DEVOSOM BUILDING,ROUND EAST THRISSUR KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.157/13
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.01.2014
(Against the order in CC No.559/2008 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, dated 22/11/12)
PRESENT
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
E.L. Francis,
M/s. Three Star Industries,
Thangamani Junction, APPELLANT
Koorkanchery P.O.,
Thrissur - 7.
(By Adv. Sri. Suresh Wilfred)
V/s.
1. Regional Manager,
State Bank of Tranvancore,
Regional Office, Paramekkavu,
Devaswom Buildings,
Round East, Thrissur RESPONDENTS
2. The Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Cherur Branch, Cherur,
Thrissur.
(By Adv. Sri. G.S. Kalkura)
JUDGMENT
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order, this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the Appellant-Appellant against the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum, Thrissur (Hereinafter the Learned Forum), order dated 22/11/2012in CC No. 559/08 filed on 17/07/2008, wherein the Learned Forum Below has dismissed the complaint on contest without any cost.
2. Brief facts is that appellant took a loan from the 2nd respondent in the year 1980 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for business purpose. The loan was collaterally secured by an equitable mortgage of the property belonging to Mr. Joseph, father of one of the partners Mr. Thomas. In 1983 the loan amount was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and then the collateral security was substituted with 14 cents of land in Survey No.183/7 of Kanimangalam Village, which was devolved upon the Appellant as per will No.5/1975. The will and the prior deeds which are Pattayam No.1922/1975 dated 20/12/1975and receipt No. 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75 of 1981 also were handed over and deposited with the bank as collateral security for the loan. The complaint was filed in the Lower Forum to get back the documents deposited with the respondent bank along with compensation. It is the case that when the documents were demanded back those were not available and the respondents behaved harshly and rudely to Appellant. So the Appellant wanted to get the documents along with compensation. The respondents filed their version and stated that there was no equitable mortgage and there was no deposit of title deeds. They would say that the security for the loan was hypothecation of goods viz. Raw materials, stock in process, etc. and personal guarantee of the partners. The appellant is relying Ext.R3 document which is a certificate issued on 4/6/1990 by the then manager Mr. Chacko. But the circumstances leading for issuance of Ext. P3 are not proved by appellant. There is no mentioning of mortgage of the property for availing the loan as per Ext. P3. There is no other evidence on the part of appellant to prove that the said documents were given in the bank as collateral security. The 2nd respondent has made it clear that usually the title clearance certificate will be issued by Advocate and Bank Manager has no such authority. The documents submitted by the respondents as evidence would show that the partners had executed promissory notes in favour of the bank. Ext. R2 would show the nature of loan as running cash credit and the the security was hypothecation of goods viz. Raw materials stock in process and personal guarantee of the partners. There is nothing mentioned about the deposit of title deeds. Parties led evidence in support of their contention and after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint based on the averments mentioned above.
3. We have perused the Memo of appeal and the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Forum. We have also heard the Learned Advocates of both sides. It is found on perusal of the documents Exts. P1 to P6 and Exts. R1 to R15 that there is no sufficient evidence on part of the Appellant to prove that the alleged documents are submitted to the Bank as collateral security. We agree with the conclusion of the Lower Forum that the letter issued by the Manager of the Bank cannot be considered as binding document to prove that the alleged documents were submitted with the Bank. The respondents had already answered to the questions of Appellant under Right to Information Act that the documents were not available and hence the entire evidence would show that there was no such deposit of title deeds with the Bank. There is also an oder from the Banking Ombudsman dated on 20th July, 2007 proving the same that the documents were not submitted with the Bank.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal, as such, the order of the Learned Forum Below does not require any intereference, and consequently the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
nb
[ SMT.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER