By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant’s case is that on 15/5/2000, the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- as per deposit receipt No.B-49 with the respondent firm. It was agreed to provide 18% interest. But the complainant did not receive any amount as interest. Subsequently she demanded the deposited amount but not returned by saying some or other reasons. A lawyer notice dated 14/12/2004 was sent but it was not accepted by the respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. 1st and 2nd respondents are called absent and set exparte.
3. The Counter filed by 3rd respondent is that this respondent denies the deposit of Rs.20,000/- with 18% interest with the respondent firm. The respondent firm is not working now and this respondent is not a partner. This respondent also denies the demand of complainant at several times and the issuance of lawyer notice and non acceptance of it. The complainant and her husband had joined 131 and 133 numbered kuries on 5/5/98 each having 40 instalments and Rs.750/- per each instalment. The total sala of the kuri was Rs.30,000/-. The kuri numbered 131 which is in her husband’s name had auctioned on 5/4/2000 and on the same day itself she also auctioned her own kuri numbered 133. The said kuries matured in August 2001. The amount stated in the complaint is the security deposit she made while she had auctioned the above said kuries. The complainant had paid the kuri amount for 28 instalments upto 16/8/2000 and after that no payment was done. As the complainant was made default in the payment of the kuri amount it was deducted from the deposited amount. So the deposited amount with interest was adjusted towards the kuri instalments. There is no balance amount and the deposited amount is not in existence now. So the complainant is not entitled to get the deposited amount. This respondent is only a partner of the respondent firm. The Manager and other partners are keeping the records and accounts of the respondent firm. So the following persons are to be included in the party array. They are (1) K.A.Lohidakshan (2)K.A.Anilkumar (3) P.Chandran Nair (4)A.L.Bindu (5)T.M.Shamsudheen (6)Ambika Bhaskaran. If these persons are not made parties the complaint will be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence dismiss.
4. The points for consideration are :
1) Is there any deficiency in service ?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and the oral testimony of RW1.
6. Points: It is the case of complainant that she had deposited Rs.20,000/- with the 1st respondent on 15/5/2000 and a deposit receipt No.B-49 was issued for the same. According to her it was agreed to provide 18% interest. But no amount was paid towards interest and so the complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 14/12/04 demanding the fixed deposit amount with interest. But it was not paid so far. The 3rd respondent in his counter stated that there were two kuries in the name of complainant and her husband and the kuri in the name of her husband was prized to them and on that day itself the complainant auctioned her kuri also At the time of auctioning the kuri they have deposited Rs.20,000/- as security. The complainant and her husband were committed default in future payments and this amount and interest adjusted towards kuri instalments. So according to the 3rd respondent the complainant is not entitled for any amount.
7. The complainant filed Exhibit P1 to P3 to prove her case. There is no oral evidence adduced by her. Exhibit P1 is the deposit receipt issued by 1st respondent kuries and loans. Exhibit P1 would show that the respondents are liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. There is nothing to show that it was issued as security for getting the money in auction. The respondents did not produce any records to prove about the contentions raised by them. There is nothing to show that the complainant and her husband were joined in two kuries with the respondents kuries and loans and they auctioned the amount etc.
8. The 3rd respondent is examined as RW1 and deposed that the deposit amount was received as security for the kuries. It is his version that the records may be in the kury company. But no records are before the Forum to substantiate the case of 3rd respondent. He has not taken any steps to bring records before the Forum. So the respondents are liable to return the Exhibit P1 amount.
9.In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.20,000/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 20th day of April 2010.
