The Case of complainant is as follows: The complainant had joined in two chitties conducted by the respondents vide ticket Nos.4/4 and 5/5. He had remitted the instalments regularly and is entitled to get back Rs.30,000/- in total. In addition to that he had deposited Rs.10,000/- on 15.5.1988 with 15% interest rate. After the termination he demanded the amount back, but was not returned. He also stated that the respondent told him that only after completing the transactions with the Irinjalakujda Town Kuries and Loans, the amount will be returned. This act of the respondent is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2. The case of respondent is as follows: The complainant is entitled to get back the amount after deducting the foreman commission. Towards that amount respondent returned Rs.3000/- on 2000 December and Rs.5000/- on 2001 April. After 15.5.98 the kuri instalments were paid out of the principal amount of the deposit also. The complainant had accepted some amount from Irinjalakuda Town Kuries and Loansand respondent was a surety and the complainant did not pay money towards that transaction and O.S.1631/00 was pending before the Munsiff Court Irinjalakuda. In that account complainant has to pay Rs.8000/- and he has no right to claim any amount from the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.

3. The points for consideration are:

(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3, Exts. R1 to R4 and testimony of PW1 and RW1.

5. The complaint is filed to get back the amount remitted in chitties and also as fixed deposit.

6. Points: The case of complainant is that he had joined in two chitties in the respondent finance company vide ticket Nos.4/4 and 5/5. He remitted entire instalments regularly and no sum is returned so far. He also stated that he had deposited Rs.10,000/- vide fixed deposit No.15/98 and this amount also not returned.

7. In the counter the respondents state that Rs.8000/- was returned on two occasions and complainant is entitled to get back the balance amount and also the foreman commission to be reduced.

8. The complainant has produced the passbooks and marked as Exts. P1 and P2. As per Exts. P1 and P2 complainant is entitled to get back the amount he has claimed. He also produced the Exts. P3 receipt to claim Rs.10,000/- deposited by him.

9. According to the respondents, after 15.5.98 kuri instalments were paid out of the interest and also from the principal amount. So their claim is that kuri instalments were adjusted from the Ext. P3 amount and also from the interest arising there from. When examined as PW1 the complainant has deposed that he has not received interest to the deposit. So it is true that the interest was taken and adjusted towards the kuri instalment. During cross-examination he was asked about the amount stated in Ext. P3 receipt as firstly it was written as Rs.15,000/-, after Rs.11,500/- and later Rs.10,000/-. He was asked during cross-examination that after correcting the amount as Rs.10,000/- in Ext. P3, he has not produced the Ext. P3 before the respondents and they did not made the entry of deducted amount. It can be seen from Ext. P3 that there was correction in the place of sum written as suggested in cross-examination. The complainant has denied all these suggestions. But it can be seen from the Ext. P3 itself and no explanation is stated by complainant regarding the correction in Ext. P3. So we are in the view that the explanation given by respondents is true.

10. Both the parties have mentioned about the transaction with Irinjalakuda Town Kuries and Loans. Ext. R1 is the copy of plaint submitted before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. In that case both the parties in this O.P. are defendents. The complainant stated that when he has demanded the amount stated in Exts. P1 to P3 documents the respondents asked him to close the transaction with Irinjalakuda Town Kuries. In the counter respondent averred that there was Rs.8000/- to be paid by the complainant in Irinjalakuda Town Kuries and he has no right to claim this amount. This view of the respondent is highly unjust. If amount is due from the respondent finance company the respondent is liable to return it. If the amount is paid or adjusted with some other transactions it is to be proved beyond doubt. There is no such evidence produced. During cross-examination RW1 stated that he has remitted Rs.11,497/- in O.S.1631/01 and the case was settled. But there is no document to show that he has remitted the amount. He has produced only the copy of plaint to show the existence of a case. He also deposed that in the columns of remarks and folio number in Ext. R2 there were entry of payment of amount to complainant. But these entries are not reliable and do not show that payments were paid. So the complainant is entitled to get back the amount contained in Exts. P1 and P2 passbooks. Ext. R3 is a document showing the acceptance of benefits and share of the deceased partner and doesn’t mean that complainant had accepted the entire amount he has entitled. He is not entitled to get back the deposited amount, due to the reasons already discussed above.

11. In the result, complaint is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month. The respondent is entitled to deduct the foreman commission.