IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6366 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANDHRA BANK, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, CITY CENTER, MEDICAL COLLEGE JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.V.JOY DAS, PANAKKAL VEEDU, VATTAYAL VEEDU (ESI), THIRUVAMBADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FURUM, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 6366 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a bank. The 1st respondent was a borrower of the bank. In respect of a loan transaction, the 1st respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Foum, Alappuzha, in which an order was passed by the Forum directing the petitioner- bank to return the title deeds and pay compensation of R. 25,000/- and Rs. 1000/- as costs. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission, who originally granted a stay on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 13,000/- as security. Subsequently, the Commission passed final orders as per which the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as costs, without prejudice to the right of the bank to realise the amount due under the second loan availed by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the bank wrote off the second loan also. Now for non- payment of the amount, as directed in the order of the Commission, an order for arrest warrant has been issued by the Forum against the petitioner, which is under challenge before me. There is a dispute as to whether the title deeds have been returned as directed by the Forum and the Commission. 2. The petitioner contends that since Rs. 13,000/- is remaining with the Commission as security, the petitioner cannot be directed to pay the amount now ordered. Counsel for the 1st respondent opposes the same. According to him, it is for the petitioner to pay the amount as directed by the Forum and then claim refund of the amount deposited with the Commission. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Now that the order or the Commission has become final, the petitioner has to comply with the same. If the petitioner has deposited any amount as security before the Commission, the W.P.C. No. 6366/10 -: 2 :- petitioner would be free to claim refund of the same from the Commission. Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that he has no objection in the petitioner applying before the Commission for refund of the amount, after paying the amounts due to the petitioner and returning the title deeds. In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall return the title deeds, if not already returned, and pay the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the 1st respondent. If the petitioner files a petition for refund of the amount deposited with the Commission, along with a certified copy of this judgment and the receipt from the 1st respondent for return of the title deeds and payment of Rs. 11,000/-, the Commission shall refund the amount of Rs.13,000/- to the petitioner without insisting of consent from the 1st respondent. If the 1st respondent, along with counsel appearing for him before this Court, appears before the petitioner within one week, the petitioner-bank shall return the title deeds and pay the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to him and the 1st respondent shall execute a receipt for the same, which shall be attested by the 1st respondent's advocate accompanying him. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.