By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.8.99 by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt No.667 in the respondents firm. The respondents had closed the firm in February 2004. But the amount did not return. Hence this complaint for the fixed deposit amount and for interest. 2. Respondents filed counter to the effect that the complainant had given the amount as loan deposit. The interest rate for this loan deposit was 14% per annum. The complainant was given a total amount of Rs.69,360/- as interest and this covers end of August 2004. The averment in the petition that the firm was closed on February 2004 is false. The firm is still in operation. Complainant was given interest in advance and he had received the interest of Rs.69,360/- by 5.2.03. This was given because the complainant needed money in advance and he agreed to retain the loan with the firm until end of 2006. As he has taken advance interest in agreement to allow retention of the principal amount with respondents until end of 2006 she is estopped from foreclosing the loan deposit. There is no interest in arrears. The complaint is pre-mature. Hence dismiss. 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. An affidavit also filed by complainant. No other evidence. 5. Point No.1: Ext. P1 is the Fixed Deposit receipt by which Rs.1,00,000/- had deposited in the respondents firm. On perusal of Ext. P1 it can be realized that it is a fixed deposit receipt and nothing else. The date of deposit is 5.8.1999 and the due date is not noted. The definite case of the complainant is that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.8.99 by receipt No.667. This is evidenced by Ext. P1. Respondent contended that this was a loan deposit and they have right to retain this loan for a period of five years and there is no cause of action. But there is no piece of paper to establish this version. Hence this view cannot be accepted. Respondents also contended that complainant had received interest. This also is an allegation and no document is produced to affirm the version. According to the respondents, the firm is still working and not closed. Hence it is easy to produce the document showing the payment of receipt. No evidence is produced to establish this case. The contention of the respondents that since the amount was given as loan, it is different from fixed deposit as foreclosure is not possible here. The complainant had deposited her money in the firm as fixed deposit and the respondents are liable to return it. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. 6. Point No.2: From the above discussion it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence the respondents are liable to return the amount. The interest rate is not mentioned in the fixed deposit receipt. So the complainant is not entitled for 14% interest. He has also no case that the respondents willfully not mentioned the rate of interest. So he is entitled for 12% interest. 7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization and pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 25th day of August 2008.
