By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The averments in the complaint are that the first respondent is a registered partnership firm and respondents-2 to 8 are the partners. The complainant is a kuri subscriber of first respondent firm in kuri No.JP/9 vide ticket No.80 of the 15th day monthly kuri. The complainant remitted the kuri amount punctually and the kuri has been terminated on 15.7.03. After remitting the payments the complainant had auctioned the kuri. The first respondent firm given to the complainant just Rs.31,950/- only stating that Rs.8000/- have been withheld as a security and this amount would be paid to the complainant after the termination of the kuri. After the termination the complainant approached the respondents for the amount of Rs.8000/- which was withheld by them. But the respondents did not pay any amount to the complainant. The respondents have no right to withhold the amount. There is gross deficiency in service and negligence on the part of respondents. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter of respondents is that it is true that the complainant was a kuri subscriber of respondents. The kuri was auctioned by the complainant and the complainant was given Rs.39,950/- by reducing the deductions. This complaint is filed by mistaking the facts. So this complaint is not maintainable. On 18.12.01 the respondents issued cheques for Rs.31,950/- of Service Co-operative Bank, Varadiyam by cheque No.55588 and by cheque No.55589 for an amount of Rs.8000/- to complainant on 20.12.01. The money was collected by the complainant on that day itself. In spite of these the averment in the complaint that Rs.8000/- was withheld by respondents is incorrect and denied. The issuance of cheques will be proved by the records from Service Co-operative Bank, Varadiyam. These respondents did not withhold Rs.8000/-. The entire amount was paid to the complainant. This complaint is filed to depreciate the reputation of the Company. Hence dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 only. No oral evidence adduced by complainant and respondents submitted no evidence. 5. Points: The complaint is filed to get Rs.8000/- with interest from the respondents an amount which was alleged to be withhold by the respondents. According to the complainant she the subscriber of a kuri of the respondents auctioned the same and the first respondent firm given the complainant Rs.31,950/- only. According to her at that time an amount of Rs.8000/- had been withhold as a security and told that this amount would be returned after the termination of the kuri. Even after the termination on 15.7.03 this amount was not returned. In the counter the respondents stated that there is no amount due to them and they have already issued cheques for the amount alleged by the complainant and this complaint is unnecessary. 6. The complainant produced Ext. P1 the copy of kuri security karar. In the complaint it is stated that Rs.31,950/- was only given to the complainant by auctioning the kuri and the respondents withhold Rs.8000/-. The document which is produced by the complainant and is marked as Ext. P1 would show that Rs.39,950/- was received by her. It is the case of respondents that they have released the amount Rs.39,950/- to the complainant by two cheques of Service Co-operative Bank, Varadiyam by Nos.55588 and 55589/. From the case proceedings it can be seen that the original of account book of the said bank along with the abstract were produced before the Forum and after verification the original was returned. Even if the documents produced from the bank are not marked we have perused the same. The register shows that on 18.12.01 by cheque No.55588 Rs.31,950/- was drawn. It also shows that on 20.12.01 by cheque No.55589 an amount of Rs.8000/- was drawn. The cheques were produced and it clearly show that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.31,950/- on 18.12.01 and Rs.8000/- on 20.12.01. The back side of the cheques contained the signature of complainant and we have compared it with the signature of complainant in the records. It is seen same. The records from the bank and the cheques show that the complainant had withdrawn the amount much earlier. Even after these records are come before the Forum the complainant failed to take any steps to disprove the same if she has such a case. It is also not done. The records show that the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious claim. So it is to be dismissed with costs to the respondents. 7. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed with direction to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs to the respondents within two months 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 2nd day of August 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
