SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Santosh Kumar Budek has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Case of the complainant in brief is that he had deposited Rs.7,000/- with the O.P.No.1 vide deposit slip No.9807202 dt.07.06.2007 under the scheme floated by SBI Mutual Fund. As per the scheme, the deposited amount will be doubled after five years. Though complainant deposited the money under the scheme, he was not issued with the certificate. Complainant ran to the office of the O.P.No.1 several times and approached for the certificate, but the same was not issued. Complainant lodged written complaints before the O.P.No.1 on dt. 19.2.2011,28.2.2011,10.2.2012 and 2.5.2012. In spite of all his best efforts, O.P.No.1 neither issued the certificate nor refunded the deposited money with interest.
    2. On dt.10.2.2012 complainant received a copy of letter bearing No. RMSI 29/68 dt.10.2.2012 issued by the O.P.No.1 addressing to the Regional Manager, State Bank of India regarding payment and early settlement of the matter after proper enquiry. But no action was taken. Finding no other alternative, complainant approached this Forum praying to direct the O.Ps to refund the deposited amount of Rs.7,000/- with 18% interest per annum and pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceeding and Rs.3,000/- towards compensation. In support of his case, complainant filed Xerox copies of (1) Acknowledgement slip issued by O.P.No.1 (2) His letters to the O.P.No.1 dt.19.2.2011, 28.2.2011 and 10,.02,2012 (3) Letter dt.10.02.2012 issued by O.P.No.1.                            
    3. Initially complainant filed the case against only O.P.No.1. After receipt of notice from this forum, O.P.No.1 send a letter dt.24.4.2013 acknowledging that it has received Rs.7,000/- from the complainant on behalf of SBI Mutual Fund. O.P.No.1 submits that the amount has been deposited with SBI Mutual Fund. The SBI Mutual Fund is a separate organization. So, complainant should make SBI Mutual Fund as a party in this case and the case against it be considered to be dismissed.
    4. After filing of this letter by O.P.No.1, complainant filed an amended petition adding O.P.No.2 as a party in this case. The amendment was allowed and O.P.No.2 was added as a party and notice was issued to O.P.No.2.
    5. One Advocate appeared and filed time petition on behalf of O.P.No.2 without any Vakalatnama. In spite of allowing several adjournments, the said advocate failed to file any Vakalatnama or written version on behalf of O.P.No.2. Hence, O.P.No.2 was set ex parte on dt.15.1.2015. 
    6. Only after sending the letter dt.24.4.2013, O.P.No.1 did not take any step to contest the proceeding or file detailed written version countering the allegations of the complainant. So, the case was proceeded with available documents. Complainant filed his written argument and case was posted for hearing.
    7. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the complaint petition, written argument filed by complainant, documents filed by the complainant and letter dt.24.4.2013 filed by O.P.No.1. After perusal of the documents we are convinced and satisfied that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.7,000/- with the O.P.No.1 on dt.07.06.2007. O.P.No.1 admitted in his letter dt.24.4.2013 that it has collected the amount on behalf of SBI Mutual Fund. O.P.No.1 states that the amount has been paid to SBI Mutual Fund. But no document has been filed by O.P.No.1 to satisfy us that it has paid the money to SBI Mutual Fund. Since no document is available with us to prove that the money has been paid to SBI Mutual fund, we are unable to accept the submission of O.P.No.1. 
    8. Since O.P.No.1 has collected the amount from the complainant and no document/certificate has been issued by SBI Mutual Fund, it is accepted that O.P.No.1 is liable for the loss and sufferings of the complainant. O.P.No.1 failed to file any document to show the relationship between it and SBI Mutual Fund. So, we are not concerned about O.P.No.2 i.e. SBI Mutual Fund. In absence of any document from SBI Mutual Fund, we find no relationship between complainant and SBI Mutual Fund.  O.P.No.1 has collected the money from the complainant and issued the acknowledgement, so it is liable to refund the collected money.
    9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant against State Bank of India, Dhama branch and direct the O.P No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven  thousand) the deposited money with interest @ 9 (Nine) ) per cent per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 07.6.2007 till the date of payment. O.P.No.1 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) towards compensation along with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand)  towards cost of the proceeding within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.                             
    10. Before parting with this case, we observe that in case there is any relationship between O.P.No.1 and SBI Mutual Fund and it has collected the money from the complainant as agent and deposited the same with SBI Mutual fund, then it should first comply the order and thereafter take up the matter with SBI Mutual Fund to get back the money paid to the complainant as per order of this Forum.