IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 23^rd  day of January 2023

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 56/2022 (Filed on 17-03-2022

Petitioner                                            :         Kesavapanikar N.P,

                                                                   Nediyidath House,

                                                                   Thiruvanchoor P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam  - 686019.

                                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                   :         Kottayam District Survey and

                                                                   Land Records Employees

                                                                   Co-operative Society  Ltd.

                                                                   No. K 350,

                                                                   Kottayam

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

       The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.      The case of the complainant is that on 10-11-2018, the complainant had made a fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party vide FD No.170/08 for a period of one year.  At the time of deposit of the amount, the opposite parties made the complainant to believe that they would pay interest at 12% per annum for the deposit.  The said FD was regularly renewed at 14-11-12 and the complainant received the interest for the deposit till that date.  Though the complainant approached the opposite party to return the FD amount, the opposite parties would not return the same to the complainant.  According to the complainant, the above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint is filed by the complainant praying the order to direct the opposite party to return the fixed deposit amount with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

          Though the notice was duly served to the opposite parties, the opposite party did not care to appear before the Commission or to file version.  Hence opposite party declared as exparte.

          Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and  Ext.A1 from the side of complainant.

          On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following points

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
2. If so, what are the reliefs?

Point No. 1 and 2

          The specific case of the complainant is that he had made a fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party on 10-11-2018.  According to the complainant, at the time of making the said deposit, the opposite party made him to believe that they would give 12% interest per annum for the deposit.  Ext.A1 is a photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt No.170/18 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Ongoing through Ext.A1, we can see that opposite parties had given an undertaking to the complainant that they would pay an interest @12% per annum and the maturity date of fixed deposit amount was on 10-11-2019.  It is further proved by Ext.A1 that the amount was renewed on 23-04-2009,                   10-11-11 and 14-11-2012.  It is further proved by Ext.A1 is that an interest of Rs.12,000/- was paid to the complainant at the instance of each renewal of the fixed deposit amount.  According to the complainant, when he approached the opposite party to withdraw the amount, the opposite party was not ready to return the fixed deposit amount.

          On the evaluation of above discussed evidence, we are of the opinion that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not returning the fixed deposit amount to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum as offered by them at the time of accepting fixed deposit amount from the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that the opposite party did not cared to appear before the Commission and contest the case adducing any contrary evidence.  In the absence of the any contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant by not returning the FD amount as promised by them.  Therefore we allow the complaint and pass the following Order.

1. We hereby direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest accrued there in @ 12% per annum till the date of production of the original of the FD deposit receipt No.170/08 by the complainant to the opposite party.
2. We hereby direct the opposite party to give Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of January, 2023

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member                 Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Copy of FD receipt No.170/08 issued by opposite party

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                         Assistant Registrar