By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: Complainants case in brief is as follows. 1. Complainant joined a kuri in Durga Kuries which is owned by the respondent. The kuri which is started on 13.2.05 and the monthly instalment is Rs.9000/- and the total sala is Rs.1,00,000/-. The pass book number is 10 and he had paid three instalments and Rs.27,000/- is due from the respondent. He has paid the amount in daily instalments. On third instalment al;so the entire kuri amount is paid by him, but the amount which is paid not mentioned in the pass book by the respondent. Due to this irresponsible attitude of the respondent, he did not paid any amount later. When the duration of the kuri is completed on 13.6.06, the petitioner approached the respondent for the amount paid by him. But the respondent did not return the amount. This is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Hence this complaint. 2. Respondent submitted counter by denying all the facts stated in the petition. The respondents institution is a partnership firm and started only on 4.5.05. There is not any transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioners allegation that Rs.27,000/- is paid in the respondent institution is not correct. He is not a subscriber of the respondent. Only by concocting documents this case has filed and undeserved benefits are intended. Petitioner is not a consumer. Mr. Ramachandran is the Managing Partner of the respondent institution and not Mr. Chandran as stated in the petition. Only on misunderstanding the notice is received. Hence dismiss the petition. 3. The cause title of the C.C. is amended as per order in I.A.259/08. 4. The points for consideration are:- (1) Whether the petitioner is a subscriber of the respondent institution? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the amount of Rs.27,000/- with interest? (3) Reliefs and costs. 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and Exts. R1 to R3. 6. Point No.1: The respondent contended that the respondent institution is a partnership firm and started only on 4.5.05. There is not any transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is not the subscriber of the respondent. Only by concocting the documents this case has been filed. But it can be seen from Ext. P1 that Durga Kuries was there and the petitioner was a subscriber and the amounts were paid by daily instalments. The notice sent from the Forum is accepted by the respondent. In that, the name shown is . In that address notice is accepted by the respondent. Prior relationship or enemity is not alleged by the parties. So the chance of concocting of documents is not arising. In the circumstance of the case we arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was a subscriber of the Durga Kuries. 7. Point No.2: As per Ext. P1 the petitioner is entitled for the amount mentioned in the pass book. He is entitled for the first two months Rs.18,000/- and the amount remitted. The petitioner claims that he has remitted the entire amount of the third month also. But Ext. P1 shows he has deposited only Rs.5680/- from 14.3.05. So he is entitled only for that amount and not for Rs.27,000/- as claimed by him. He has right to obtain Rs.23,680/- from the respondent. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.23,680/- (Rupees twenty three thousand six hundred and eighty only) to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.4.05 and 6% interest from today till realization. No order as to costs and compensation. Time for compliance one month. Dictated to the confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29th day of April 2008.
