The averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant is a kuri subscriber of the respondent company as per statement No.27. The complainant had auctioned the kuri and deposited Rs.16,000/- in the respondent company itself as per receipt No.27/98. He had auctioned the kuri as per the assurance given by the company that if the kuri is auctioned and deposited the auctioned amount, they will give 15% interest and it will be sufficient to pay off the future instalments. The complainant had auctioned the kuri on 30.6.98 and the instalments up to 30.10.03 were paid off from the interest of the deposited amount. After that the respondent company told that the future instalments will not be paid off from the interest only because they reduced the rate of interest. So the balance amount will have to be adjusted from the deposited amount. This unilateral act of the respondent is unfair trade practice and the complaint is filed.

 

            2. The averments in the counter is that the complainant had deposited Rs.16,000/- on 15.12.98 for 15% interest for three years only.  More over the complainant had executed a karar agreeing to accept the change of rate of interest. The act of reduction of rate of interest had been intimated the complainant in time and there is no unilateral act. The 15% interest rate of Rs.16,000/- will come to Rs.800/- and it is not sufficient to pay off the instalments. In some occasions there may not be dividend and it is unable to meet the instalment charges. So the relief sought by the complainant is baseless and the complaint is to be dismissed. 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of respondent?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R4.

 

            5. Point No.1: The dispute is regarding the reduction of interest rate. The complainant is a kuri subscriber of respondent company as per statement No.27. He had auctioned the kuri and deposited in the company itself Rs.16,000/- with 15% interest. According to him, he had auctioned the kuri only on the basis of some assurances given by the respondent company that they will give 15% interest and it will be sufficient to pay off the future instalments. Only upon this assurance he had auctioned the kuri. The date of the auction was 30.6.98 and the instalments of the kuri was paid out of the interest till 30.10.03. After that the company refused to give 15% interest and told that the interest won’t be sufficient to pay off the kuri instalments. According to the complainant, the respondent company had reduced the interest rate unilaterally without any reason and this amounts to unfair trade practice. In the counter, the respondent company stated that the act of reduction of interest rate is not unilateral and the thing is intimated to all subscribers including the complainant. They also contended that the rate of interest of 15% of Rs.16,000/- will come about Rs.800/- only and this won’t sufficient to pay off the kuri instalments. It is further stated that if there is no dividend it is unable to meet from the interest. Another contention raised by the respondent is that the interest rate of 15% was assured for three years. They also produced a fixed deposit receipt and is marked as Ext. R1. In the receipt it is written as “as a deposit repayable 15.12.2001”. So according to the respondent, they are bound to pay interest at the rate of 15% only up to that date. The complainant has produced another receipt, which is marked as Ext. P1 in which the due date shown as 30.10.2010. The date of deposit is 15.12.98. If Ext. R1 is genuine the question is how the receipt issued by the respondent company arrived in the hands of respondent itself. The due date shown in Ext. P1 is 30.10.2010 and this is the termination date of the kuri also. Usually in these kinds of deposits the due date will be up to the termination. There is no case of the respondent that Ext. P1 is a forged one. The fixed deposit receipts are to be kept by the depositors and the genuineness of Ext. R1 is doubtful. The rate of interest stated in Ext. P1 receipt is 15% and there is no evidence produced by the respondent permitting them to reduce the rate of interest. So the act is a unilateral one and the respondent company has no right to do that. If the interest is not enough to pay the kuri instalments the company can very well adjust money from the deposited amount. But they have no right to reduce the agreed rate of interest after the deposit without valid reasons. The act of the respondent company was unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 15%.

 

            6. Point No.2: The relief sought by the complainant is directing the respondent to pay off the kuri instalments out of the interest of the deposited amount. But this view of the complainant is not correct. The complainant has every right to get 15% interest and it is to be adjusted towards the instalments. If there is any insufficiency the balance amount required to pay the kuri instalment is to be taken from the deposited amount. There is no other way remained to the respondent. They have no duty to take money from their accounts to pay the instalments of the complainant.

 

            7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to adjust the interest amount towards the kuri at the rate of 15% of the deposited amount and if it is seen that the interest amount is not sufficient, the company has every right to take the balance required amount from the deposited amount. Respondent is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the litigation within one month.