THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 120/2006.<br /> Thursday, the 5th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> Petitioner : P.A Mathew,<br /> Pullipadavil House,<br /> W 22, Annanagar,<br /> Chennai.<br /> Reptd. By his Power of Attorney<br /> Holder T.P Korulla,<br /> Thamarasseril House,<br /> Eravinalloor P.O, Kottayam<br /> (By Adv. John Zachariah)<br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite party : Itty Avirah,<br /> Kattathara House,<br /> Thiruvarppu P.O<br /> Kottayam.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> Opposite party was a registered proprietory Firm under the name “Kattthara Financers conducting business of cheque discounting and financing at 'Adam Tower, Kottayam. They used to accept fixed deposits from the public at attractive interest rate and was giving receipts for the same. Petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 25000/- on 23..3..2002 as per receipt No. 335 in his name, with the opposite party. The petitioner stated that opposite party promised to give 15 % interest for the amount and to return the amount with 15 days notice.<br /> Initially the deposits were made for a period of 12 months and the interest was payable every month. Later it was renewed yearly. After June 2002 the opposite party<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> stopped payment of interest. Hence the petitioner demanded the opposite party for refund of the amount, but the said amount was not given by the opposite party. The petitioner alleged that opposite party closed the office and started some other business. When he repeatedly demanded the amount, the opposite party requested more time for payment. According to him one Mr. Sunni, Arun Rubbers, Chengallam, Pallikkathodu, owe Rs. 32 lakhs to him. As such an agreement entered in to between petitioner along with some other depositors and the opposite party on 7..8..2003. As per the agreement, the opposite party has to pay back the amount along with interest to the petitioner on or before 7..2..2004. Petitioner states that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice so the petitioner seeks the direction of the Forum for refund of the deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% and also he claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version so the opposite party is set ex-parte.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A3 documents.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by not paying back the deposit amount with interest after its maturity. He proved his case by<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> filing the affidavit through Power of Attorney holder along with Ext. A1 to A3 documents. A1 is the original fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 25,000/- dtd: 23..3..2002. Ext. A2 is the copy of the agreement dtd: 7..8..2003 and Ext. A3 is the copy of the Power of Attroney. The Power of Attorney holder avered that petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the opposite party upon his asssurance that it will be paid back with 15% interest with 15 days notice. When the petitioner requested the opposite party he told the petitioner that he wants some more time for the payment, he along with some other depositors entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 7..8..2003. As per the agreement the opposite party has to pay back the amount with interest before 7..2..2004. But even after expiry of stipulated date the payment was not done. This amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. The opposite party has not entered appeaance or adduced any evidence to disprove the allegations leveled against him by the petitioner. So the averments of the petitioner stands unchallenged. We are of the opinion that the said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on his part.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1. Petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to reliefs. In the result the petition is ordered as follows. The opposite party is ordered to pay back the amount of Rs. 25000/- with 6% interest per annum from 1..7..2002 till payment along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner as interest is allowed no compensation is allowed. The opposite party is also ordered under section 14 (f) of the Consumer Protection Act to discontinue the unfair trade<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> practice or not to repeat the same. This order will be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If not complied within the stipulated time, interest will be 12% at place of 6 % as ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008.