SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This complaint filed by the complainant for a direction to the opp.party to pay the interest for his two Fixed Deposits, compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: Complainant is a contractor and he is a consumer as defined under section 2 [1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant made two fixed deposits with the opp.party [1] FD No.1184 dt.23.7.1996 for Rs.12,000/- and [2] FD No.1432 dt. 13.12.1997 for Rs.35,000/- . Unfortunately the original receipt of the said Fixed Deposits were irrecoverably lost from the complainant and so the complainant could not renew the deposits in time. The opp.party who is duty bound to intimate such matters to the customers failed to inform the complainant regarding the renewal period on the Fixed Deposits. The complainant made a request to the opp.party to renew the deposits and to release the interest of the FD’s and the opp.party refunded the interest for the deposits only at the fate of 4% per annum. The complainant caused to issue an Advocate notice to the opp.party claiming interest for the principal amount at the rate of 18% till the date of realization along with compensation and cost. The opp.party send a reply to the said notice stating false allegations. The opp.party who is duty bound to refund the interest at the rate of 18% per annum has refunded the interest only at the rate of 4% per annum. The act of the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had opened two Fixed Deposits for Rs.35,000/- and Rs.12,000/-on 3.12.1997 and 23.7.1996 respectively. After making the deposit, those deposits were charged as security deposits to some Govt. Departments. The comp0lainant requested for release of the deposits and interest. The opp.parties informed him of their inability to release the FD’s since those receipts are given charged to Govt. Department and further informed that the FD’s can be released only when the concerned Government Department releases the charge on the deposits The complainant submitted an affidavit in the bank stating that the deposits receipts are irrecoverably lost from him in a journey from Kollam to Mumbai. The opp.parties informed the complainant to comply with the legal formalities by executing indemnity bond and furnishing necessary security so as to enable the bank to release the FD’s. The complainant issued a reply to the bank stating his inability to furnish security and requested to renew the FD’s The opp.party renewed the deposits in time. On 12.4.06 the deposits were renewed for a further period ten years and credited the over due interest to his SB account and the complainant had withdrawn the amount. Thereafter the interest due on the renewed deposits is transferred to his SB account and he is regularly withdrawing that amount. The interest is paid as per the rate of interest in force at that time and the complainant without any objection released those amount. The allegation that he is entitled to get interest @ 18% and the bank paid only @ 4% is false. The complainant approached this court with unclean hands. In the complaint he states that the FD receipts are irrecoverably lost. But in the agreement of indemnity in favour of the bank he states that the FD’s are charged to some Govt. department. The opp.party is ready to release the deposits either on submitting confirmation from the Govt. Department regarding release of charge or on furnishing sufficient security and indemnity and other required formalities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1. to P4 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D9 are marked. POINTS: The complainant made 2 Fixed Deposits in the opp.party bank is not disputed. However the complainant has no consistent case regarding the FD receipts. In the complaint as well as in Ext. D1 and D3 his case is that the FD receipts are irrecoverably lost. But in Ext. D4indemnity bond he would say that the FD receipts are given as charge to some Government Department. The FD receipts have not been produced before the opp.party for withdrawal of the matured amount is also not disputed. The definite case of the opp.party is that the FD amount cannot be released without producing the FD receipts or furnishing sufficient security or on furnishing the discharge order from the department concerned. Ext. D2 shows that the complainant has informed the opp.party that he is unable to give sufficient security and so the FD’s may be renewed for a further period of 5 years and interest accrued disbursed to him. He has also furnished Ext. D4 indemnity bond. According to the opp.party they have renewed the FD’s on the basis of Exts. D2 and D4 and the interest accrued was credited in the account of the complainant which was withdrawn by the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that Ext. D4 is a document fabricated by the opp.parties using a signed stamp paper obtained from him. That argument will not hold water in the light of the admission of PW.1 in cross examination at page 3 that he has executed an indemnity bond on 10.6.06 on the basis of Ext. D3 affidavit. So no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opp.party. The complainant is claiming interest @ 18% on the Fixed deposits. But he has not produced any material to show that he is entitled to get 18% interest. Exts. D5 and 6 clearly shows the rate of interest admissible at the time of making the FDs. If it is disputed the burden is on the complainant to establish the correct rate of interest which he failed to discharge. In cross examination at page 2 he has stated that he does not know the rate of interest at the time of making the deposit. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that a man like the complainant would make a fixed deposit without ascertaining the rate of interest. In further cross examination at P4 to a pointed question as to how he demanded 18% interest he said Qgk interest Svlpjv\vflnk\ from which it is obvious that his demand is without any bonafides. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant has withdrawn the interest on his FD’s without raising a murmur. Ext. D9 is a circular issued by the Asset liability management Department regarding payment of interest on Fixed Deposits. The complainant has no case that he has not been given the rate of interest shown therein. The complainant has not produced even a scrap of paper to establish that the interest shown in Ext.D9 is not correct. From the materials now before in we are of the view that the complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands. He has failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with compensatory costs Rs. 1000/- to the opp.party. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. - Saji.M. Mathew List of documents for the complainant P1. – Notice dated 14.2.2007 P2. – postal receipt P3. – Acknowledgement card P4. – Reply notice List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Jacob.G. List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Certified copy of letter dt.7.12.05to the Manager Federal bank, Edamon D2. - Letter dt. 12.4.06 D3 . –Affidavit D4. – Agreement of Indemnity D5. - Term deposit ledger for Rs.10,000/- D6. – Term deposit ledger copy for Rs.35,000/- D7, - Fixed Deposits details D8. – S.B Account D9. - Circular | 
