By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member

            The complainant’s case in brief is that she had joined in the 7^th day pooval kuri conducted by the respondent  on December 7, 2000 vide statement No.68.  The complainant had  bid the kuri in  auction on 10/4/2001 and deposited Rs.34,000/- in the respondent firm on 6/9/2001.  It was agreed to  give 15%  interest for the deposited amount.  The said kuri will be terminated   on August  7, 2012.  So  the interest amount was utilized to remit the kuri instalments.  But when the complainant approached the respondent to remit the  kuri instalment on 8/8/2008  it was informed that the rate of interest has been reduced to 10%.  On 8/8/2008 the respondents give her only Rs.7924/- instead of  Rs.18,700/-.  The respondents have no right to reduce the rate of interest till the termination of the kuri.  So a lawyer notice was issued on 1/9/2008.  But there was no reply and  no remedy.  Hence the complaint filed.

          2. The counter version in brief is as follows: The complainant has joined in the kuri on December 7, 2000 and bid the kuri on 10/4/2001.  The complainant has deposited Rs.34,000/- as kuri security deposit.  The interest has been calculated up to 8/8/2008 and remitted the amount into the kuri instalments upto 7/12/2005.  If further instalments has to be remitted  amount has to be withdrawn from the security amount.  The kuri security  is not a fixed deposit. The security amount can be withdrawn at any time if adequate security is given.  The rate of interest was reduced as per the direction from the Reserve Bank and it was duly informed to the complainant and the interest was reduced from 31/3/2005 onwards.  The kuri will be terminated on 7^th August 2012.  The kuri  security amount and its interest has to be adjusted for the kuri instalments if   defaulted and if there is any balance amount that will be returned on termination of the kuri.  The complainant has to pay Rs.47,500/- in 19 instalments and there is only a security deposit of Rs.34,000/-.  The complainant has remitted upto 7/12/2005.  So there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the respondents.  Hence dismiss the complaint.

          3. Points for consideration are :

1) Is the complainant entitled to get the amount claimed?

2) other reliefs and costs ?

           4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 and P2.  Respondents have no evidence to adduce.

          5 Points: The complainant’s case is that she joined  in the 7^th day pooval kuri and bid the kuri in auction on 10/4/2001.  The complainant deposited Rs.34,000/- on 6/9/2001.  It was agreed to pay 15% interest for the deposit. The interest amount was allowed to remit towards the kuri instalments.  But the rate of interest was reduced to 10%.  And on 8/8/2008 the respondent gave only Rs.7,924/- instead of Rs.18,700/-.  The complainant claims that she is entitled to get back Rs.10,776/- more from the respondents.  The counter version is that the complainant deposited Rs.34,000/- as kuri security deposit.  The interest has been calculated up to 8/8/2008 and remitted the amount into the kuri instalments up to 7/12/2005.  If further instalments has to be remitted  amount has to withdrawn from the kuri security deposit.  The rate of interest was reduced as per the direction from the  Reserve Bank and it was duly informed to the complainant.  The kuri will be terminated on 7/8/2012.  The kuri security amount and its interest has to be adjusted for the kuri instalment if defaulted.  If there is any balance amount that will be returned on termination of the kuri.  Exhibit P2 is the kuri security acknowledgement card.  It is evident that Rs.34,000/- was pledged on 6/9/2001 for kuri amount  for a period of 60 months.  So as per Exhibit P2 the complainant is liable to get Rs.5,100/- as annual interest.  At the same time she had to remit 3 instalments in the kuri in a year.  The complainant has not stated clearly whether she had remitted the krui instalments directly or adjusted the interest amount into the kuri instalments.  However the kuri will be terminated only on 7/8/2012.  Hence the dispute arises only after the termination of the kuri.

          6. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.  

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th  day of December 2010.