S.M. Kantikar ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2013, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'), vide which, the Consumer Complaint No. C-05/13, filed by the present respondent, was allowed and the appellant/opposite party (OP) was directed to return the original sale deed number 1959/92 to the complainant within one month, failing which to provide compensation of 10 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent availed a loan from the appellant, Mayyanadu Regional Cooperative Bank, by mortgaging his property in survey No. 150/2 in block 26 of Mayyanadu Village and by pledging his original title deed No. 1959/92 of the said property with the Bank. The complainant repaid his loan, but the OP Bank did not return the original title deed. It has been stated that the Bank orally informed him in the year 1999 that the original deed was missing, and the OP Bank was on search to recover the same. However, loan was advanced to the complainant a number of times thereafter. The loan case was finally closed on 08.09.2012 and an endorsement to that fact was made by the Bank in the loan passbook. The Bank informed the complainant at that time that the title deed was lost, when the Bank shifted their building premises. The complainant stated that the property was valued at about 75 lakhs and due to lack of original document, the complainant was unable to sell the property to the third parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, the consumer complaint was filed, seeking compensation of 25 lakhs from the OP for deficiency in service/unfair trade practices etc.
3. Though, the OP Bank entered appearance before the State Commission, but they did not file any written version. The State Commission after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed as follows:-
"Therefore complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the original sale deed No. 1959/92 of SRO Kottiyam to the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the complainant is entitled to a compensation of 10 lakh with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition till realisation. The opposite party is also directed to give a certificate to the complainant to the effect that the title deed is lost if they are unable to return the title deed."
4. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the OP Bank is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Written arguments have also been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank.
6. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint was hopelessly time barred as the same had not been filed within the permissible time prescribed under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was mandatory on the part of the complainant to have filed the complaint within 2 years of the cause of action, but the complaint was filed after 12 years of the accrual of cause of action. The learned counsel argued that during all these years, the complainant availed himself of fresh loans on a number of occasions. It was, therefore, unfair on his part to allege deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in any manner. The learned counsel has drawn attention to a copy of letter dated 06.04.99, written by the Bank, in which a clear direction was given that loan could be given to the complainant, after taking a certified copy of the title deed of the property. The complainant had not been able to show if they had suffered any damage on account of the........