SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in C.C. No. 164/09 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 24.1.2011. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he availed a loan from the opposite party and sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 23.3.2007. This amount was availed by the complainant on 31.3.2007. He was regularly paying the installment with interest. Later he enquired about the transfer of the said loan from the appellant to S.B.I, Kasargod branch. The State Bank of India was ready to take over the loan with the appellant, by closing the loan with the appellant. Accordingly as required by the S.B.I., the first opposite party issued a letter to the manager, SBI, Kasargod branch informing the amount to be remitted by the respondent for closing the loan accordingly. S.B.I. arranged a sum of Rs. 4,68,905/- for the purpose of closing the loan account with the appellant. In pursuant to that official firm, SBI, Kasargod branch namely Sri. Asok kumar was duly authorized and deputed for collection. The Title Deeds from the appellant after handing over the D.D. for the said sum of Rs. 4,68, 905/- to be paid to the opposite party on behalf of the complainant with the complaint along with the said Asok Kumar went to the appellants office at Kannur with a letter from the branch manager, S.B.I., Kasargod and requested to give back the Title Deeds or to deliver the letter in writing undertaking to handover the Title Deeds or within a specified period to be fixed by the first appellant. The first appellant was not ready to handover the Title Deed and refused to give an undertaking to return the Title Deed to them within a specified period.
In the complaint, it is alleged that due to the irresponsibility and indifferent attitude of the opposite parties the complainant was forced to pay interest for amount of Rs. 4,68,905/- from 6.6.2009 on wards to SBI, without any benefits. Hence, the complainant issued a lawyers notice to the first opposite party and for that the opposite party sent a false and prevalent reply. Hence, he filed a complaint.
The opposite party filed written version and strongly contended that the allegations of the complainant are not true and there is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. The allegations like that though the first opposite party was ready to accept the D.D inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, the first opposite party was not ready to hand over the Title Deed or a letter of undertaking to return the Title Deed is false and hence denied by the appellant.
The prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint. The complainant adduced evidence, the oral evidence of the complainant Pw1, and the oral evidence of the branch manager of the SBI, Kasargod is Pw2. Documents marked as Ext. A1 to A5. There is no document either oral evidence or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party.
The Forum below considered the entire evidence and heard the opposite parties in detail and taken a view that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. The Forum below taken a view that the complainant is liable to pay the interest for Rs. 4,44,474/- (4,68,905 - 24,431) from 31.3.2009 to 6.6.2009 to the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties can deduct that interest from Rs. 24,431/- and need to pay only the balance to the complaint. The opposite parties are also directed to settle the loan amount of the complainant and return all the documents and Title Deeds got under their custody. However the claim of the complainant for interest of âRs. 4,68,905/- from 6.6.2009 to till date of settlement of loan amount of opposite parties is disallowed. Since the complainant got his loan closed that was pending with the opposite parties. Hence the complainant need not pay any interest to the opposite party. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss , hardships and mental agony caused to the complainant together with the cost of Rs. 4000/-
Time for complainants is limited to 30 days. From the date of receipt of copy of the order.
On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. Hence, the impugned order liable to be quashed by allowing this appeal, the respondent /complainant argued that the order passed by the Forum below is strictly on accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The Forum below appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the complainant. But the appellant/opposite party even take any steps to adduce either any piece of oral or documentary evidence before the Forum below. The counsel for the appellant contended that they produced some documents before the Forum below. These are statements of accounts and some calculations. The counsel invited our attention that these documents already mentioned in the bottom of the version filed by them before the Forum below.
We heard in detail and examined the available evidence from the case bundle. We are seeing that the respondent /complainant adduced both oral and documentary evidence to prove his complaint. But at the very same time there is no single piece of evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties. Even the aforesaid document mentioned in the version by the Counsel is not seen marked. Even though for the interest of justice we perused these documents. This is only a proof noted by the amounts and calculations. If the opposite parties are having a strong case they can produce their in legibly maintained account book by them. They approached both to the Forum and this Commission without any single document. At the very same time the complainant is having a strong case of deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and they adduced both oral and documentary evidence . We are seeing that the attempt of the appellant is nothing but abuse the process of justice and to harass the respondent/complainant. This is an attempt to prolong the matter and also prolonging the execution of the order passed by the Forum below. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is strictly as per the provisions of law and evidence. It is legally sustainable. We upheld this order.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. This commission directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,000/- as a cost of this appeal to the respondent/complainant. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.