By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of the complainant is that she had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the respondents firm on 19.4.99 as Fixed Deposit by way of receipt No.601/99. The respondents had closed the firm in February 2004. But the amount not returned. As per the fixed deposit receipt she is entitled to get the amount and 14% interest. But not received so far. Hence this complaint. 2. The version of the respondents is that the complainant had given the amount as loan deposit and the interest fixed was 14%. The first respondent firm had paid the petitioner an amount of Rs.15,952/- as interest for Rs.20,000/- principal amount and that would cover the interest ending December 2004. The averment that interest was paid only upto January 2004 is incorrect and false. The complainant was given this interest in advance on a monthly basis as she needed more money monthly and by 5.2.03 she had received this total interest of Rs.15,952/-. The petitioner is the wife of Kanakaratnam who had transactions with the respondent firm and this special arrangement of giving interest as advance was done due to the close friendly relationship with said Kanakaratnam. Kanakaratnam had also availed this sort of privilege for this loan deposit as they were in need of more money to settle monthly expenditure. As per the oral agreement it was agreed to compensate for this disadvantage by waiving interest for the rest of the maturity period, which is of 2006. Therefore, there is no interest in arrears. Petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition as the loan deposit is due only by end of December 2006. Hence the petition is pre-mature. The respondent firm rightly refused payment as the petitioner cannot foreclose a loan deposit and it should run its maturity period. The petitioner had enjoyed advance interest payment and now it does not lie on the mouth of the petitioner to say that she should get her principal amount prior to 31.12.06. There is absolutely no deficiency in service. The petitioner is not entitled for any compensation as claimed. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. Proof affidavit filed by complainant. Ext. P1 marked. No other evidence. 5. Point No.1: Ext. P1 is the Fixed Deposit receipt by which Rs.20,000/- 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 19.4.99 and the due date is not noted. The definite case of the complainant is that she had deposited Rs.20,000/- on 5.8.99 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum by receipt No.601/99. 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 aspect. 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 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. 7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 19.4.99 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.
