By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows: <br /> <br /> 1. Petitioner was a subscriber of kuries of the respondent and he used to deposit money as Fixed Deposit in the respondent institution. The respondent made to believe that the respondent institution has authority to conduct kuri and other money transactions. Only on that belief the petitioner had joined kuries and deposited money. Thus on 7.9.96 the petitioner had deposited Rs.3000/- for five years in the respondent institution by virtue of deposit receipt No.88/96-97. But before the maturity date the respondent institution was closed. Consequently the petitioner approached the respondent for the amount, but not received so far. Notice sent to the respondent. He has replied the notice with untenable matters. But no remedy is so far. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Respondent’s case is as follows: Respondent institution is still functioning and never closed. It is true that the petitioner had deposited money in the respondent institution. But it was returned with interest. The averments in the reply notice are correct. There is no deficiency. Hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The only point to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to get back the deposited amount?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3. <br /> <br /> 5. The point: According to the petitioner, he has deposited Rs.3000/- on 7.9.06 in the respondent institution. The promised interest was 18%. Before the maturity period the institution was closed and he had approached for the amount, but not received so far. But in the counter, respondent stated that the amount was returned with interest and there is nothing to pay and no deficiency. But this view of the respondent cannot be accepted. According to the respondent, the institution is still functioning. Then there is no difficulty to produce the evidence to establish his version. If the amount was returned, there shall documents showing the payment. No piece of paper is produced. So the respondent’s version is not at all believable. <br /> <br /> 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 7.9.96 and 6% interest from today till realisation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs. Time for payment one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of May 2008.<br />