JUDGMENT Ranjit R, Member. - The appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram dated 31.12.2016 in C.C. No. 140/2013 by which the district forum directed the opposite party to return document No. 2099/2003 of SRO Areacode to complainant immediately. (2) Further directed the opposite party not to take any action pursuant to the notice dated 14.11.2012 which is not related to complainant. (3) On payment of the dues of the loan availed by the complainant on 01.10.2007 opposite party shall receive the same and issue receipt to the complainant and (4) Opposite party shall pay Rs. 1, 00, 000/- to complainant as compensation for mental agony together with cost of Rs. 2, 000/-. 2. Case of the complainant is that in 2006 complainant availed a non-agricultural short term loan from the opposite party and for getting the loan the then Secretary of the bank had procured certain signed paper from the complainant. They also directed the complainant to produce title deeds (Areacode SRO 2099/2003) in respect of his immovable property for perusal. That was also produced before the opposite party by the complainant. In 2007 complainant closed the loan. On 01.10.2007 the opposite party gave receipt for Rs. 11, 699/- by which the loan was closed by the complainant. On the same day another loan for Rs. 10, 000/- was availed by the complainant from opposite party as NST and for that also complainant gave necessary documents signed by him. But the opposite party did not return the title deed of the complainant kept with them. In the meantime the financial capacity of the complainant diminished and he could not repay the loan. On 14.07.2012 a registered notice was sent by the opposite party showing that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 25, 000/- and that Rs. 31, 149/- was due. But such a huge amount is not due. Then on 19.03.2013, when the complainant approached the opposite party it was told that Rs. 33, 767/- was due from him and without discharging the liability the title deeds wouldn''t be returned. After 01.10.2007 complainant has never signed any documents or loan application as guarantor or as witness. 31, 149/- was due. But such a huge amount is not due. Then on 19.03.2013, when the complainant approached the opposite party it was told that Rs. 33, 767/- was due from him and without discharging the liability the title deeds wouldn''t be returned. After 01.10.2007 complainant has never signed any documents or loan application as guarantor or as witness. When he enquired about the correctness of the amounts, he was told that the wife of the complainant namely Sainaba, her brothers Iliyas, Haneefa and sister Rahemath had availed loan from the opposite party and they kept dues in their account and without discharging the liability the opposite party cannot return the documents. The complainant has no knowledge of these loans and so opposite party has to be given direction to the opposite party to accept Rs. 10, 000/- availed by the complainant on 01.10.2007 with interest and other expenses and to return the title deeds together with compensation of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- and costs. 3. The opposite party filed written version denying the case of the complainant. It is true that the complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party in 2006 and at that time had submitted his title deeds as security for repayment of the loan. Actually the complainant had submitted an application for Rs. 60, 000/- as loan. Since the maximum amounts which can be given is Rs. 10, 000/- per person the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 10, 000/- in his name and Rs. 10, 000/- each in the name of his wife and her siblings Iliyas, Haneefa, Rahmath and Fathima. All loanees stood as sureties to each other for the above six loans and the title deeds of the complainant was given as security. It is false to say that the complainant closed the earlier loan. On the other hand he renewed his old loan and the security given for the old loan was given as security for the new loan availed by him. The same were renewed in 2008 and since then for two years complainant did not come to the bank. Then after repeated requests of the opposite party, the complainant came to the bank in 2011 and requested for closing the defaulted loans. The same were renewed in 2008 and since then for two years complainant did not come to the bank. Then after repeated requests of the opposite party, the complainant came to the bank in 2011 and requested for closing the defaulted loans. On 28.02.2011 the defaulted loans in the name of Rahmath and Fathima were closed and the loans in the name of the complainant and his wife Sainaba and her brother Iliyas were renewed as loans of Rs. 25, 000/- each with the complainant being surety of the same. If the loan standing in the name of the complainant and other loans in which the complainant stood as guarantor are paid off, the title deeds submitted by the complainant would be returned. Till the liabilities are discharged the opposite party is entitled to keep the documents as security and prayed that the complaint is to be dismissed. 4. Evidence in the case consisted of affidavit in lieu of chief examination filed by the complainant and Exts. A1 to A5 marked on his side. Opposite party also filed affidavit and Exts. B1 & B2 were marked on their side. Complainant''s wife was examined as DW1. 5. Heard the appellant and the complainant who was present in person and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the forum that the complainant had not renewed the loan in 2007 is wrong since complainant himself in his complaint has admitted that the loan taken in 2006 was closed by availing new loan on 01.10.2007. 7. Perusing the complaint and affidavit in lieu of chief it has come out that the complainant has averred this fact in his complaint as well as in his affidavit. The complainant while arguing before this Commission has admitted that he had taken fresh loan on 01.10.2007 after closing the previous loan. He further admitted that his loan was again renewed in 2008. From the above it is clear that the finding of the lower forum in this ground is wrong. 8. The definite case of the opposite party as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant did not close the earlier loan but he had renewed his old loan and security given for the old loan was given as security for the new loan availed by him. The same loan was renewed in 2008. 8. The definite case of the opposite party as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant did not close the earlier loan but he had renewed his old loan and security given for the old loan was given as security for the new loan availed by him. The same loan was renewed in 2008. But later he did not repay interest and complainant came back only in 2011 and requested for closing the defaulted loan. On 28.02.2011 the defaulted loans in the name of Rahmath and Fathima were closed and the loans in the name of complainant and his wife and her brother Iliyas were renewed as loans of Rs. 25, 000/- each, and the complainant is the surety for the same. 9. Complainant vehemently denied the execution of loan documents which was alleged to be executed by him on 28.02.2011. (Ext. B1). Complainant has admitted his signature shown in the letter dated 19.05.2006 but he disputes his signature in letter dated 14.11.2008 and 28.08.2011 and he filed petition to send the documents to be examined by expert. But the district forum dismissed the petition, finding that the disputed signature of the complainant on letter dated 14.11.2008 and 28.08.2011 are apparently different than that of his admitted signature in letter dated 19.05.2006. 10. Sec. 34 of the Evidence Act says that "entries in books of accounts (maintained in electronic form) regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they referred to a matter in which has court has to enquire, but such statement shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability". It means books of account being only corroborative evidence must be supported by other evidence. In the instant case complainant has denied the execution of Ext. B1. The bank on the other hand produced the corresponding ledger in support of Ext. B1 as contemplated under Sec. 34 of Indian Evidence Act. The bank has also examined the wife of the complainant as DW1 who is one of the signatories of Ext. B1 & B2 documents in support of their case. She was not cross examined by the complainant on this point. Complainant also did not give oral evidence. In this circumstance we are of the opinion that Ext. B1 & B2 and the corresponding ledgers are to be relied upon. From Ext. B1 & B2 documents in support of their case. She was not cross examined by the complainant on this point. Complainant also did not give oral evidence. In this circumstance we are of the opinion that Ext. B1 & B2 and the corresponding ledgers are to be relied upon. From Ext. B1 dated 28.02.2011 it can be seen that the loan in the name of complainant and his wife Sainaba and her brother Iliyas was renewed as loan of Rs. 25, 000/-. Ext. B1 is the loan in the name of complainant, his wife Sainaba and her sister Fathima dated 14.11.2008 for an amount of Rs. 10, 000/-. This loan was renewed as loans of Rs. 25, 000/- each with the complainant being surety for the same. Admittedly complainant did not pay any amount on the loan and it caused the appellant to issue Ext. A1 notice demanding him to clear the dues. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the aforesaid circumstance the bank has every right to exercise banker''s lien in as much as the loan standing in the name of the complainant and other loans in which the complainant stood as guarantor are paid off, securities submitted by the complainant would be returned. Till the liabilities are discharged opposite party/appellant is entitled to keep the documents as security. 12. Sec. 171 of the Contract Act deals with banker''s lien. Section states that "bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorney of a High Court and policy brokers may in the absence of contract on the contrary, retain as security for general balance of account any goods bailed to them; but no other person have a right to retain as security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect". Section contemplates that the bankers have general lien on all securities left with them by the customers unless there be an express contract or circumstance to show an implied contract in consistent with lien. Bankers have general lien on all securities left with them by their customers. The lien is the right to retain the property belonging to debtor unless and until the dues from the latter is paid. The banker''s lien is a special forum of general lien, it includes the right of sale after reasonable notice. 13. Bankers have general lien on all securities left with them by their customers. The lien is the right to retain the property belonging to debtor unless and until the dues from the latter is paid. The banker''s lien is a special forum of general lien, it includes the right of sale after reasonable notice. 13. In the instant case the bank can exercise the right of general lien on the security which the complainant has deposited while taking the first loan unless and until he pays off his legal debt. 14. The district forum without applying these legal principles and without any basis passed the impugned order, which is per se unreasonable and unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. We do so. In the result, appeal is allowed and the order of the district forum is set aside. Consequently Consumer Complaint No. 140/2013 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram stands dismissed. Release the statutory amount of Rs. 25, 000/- deposited by the appellant on its application. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.