By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :
The case of complainant in CC.722/08 is that on 31/12/98 the complainant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- as kuri security deposit towards the kuri Nos. of 24 and 187. The due date of deposit was 9/12/09. The interest rate fixed was 18% and on 20/5/08 when the complainant had gone to the respondent alongwith the deposit receipt the respondents corrected the interest rate as 12% by scoring off 18% and it was told that the respondent will pay the interest at the rate of 12% only. The respondent has no right to act like this. The unilateral act of respondent is unfair and deficiency in service. So a lawyer notice was issued. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is true that on 31/12/98 the complainant had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- as kuri security vide No.387 kuri security receipt. When the complainant was a minor her father joined kuri and the amounts were deposited by her father. On 30/12/98 a kuri security deed was executed by the father. An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was accepted towards the payment of future instalment of the kuri. The interest rate fixed was 18%. The rate of interest was reduced as per the directions of Finance department and RBI. Accordingly from 1/1/02 onwards the interest reduced as 12%. It was intimated to complainant by way of registered notice that the interest rate had reduced to 12% and if the complainant is not willing for the same she can withdraw the amount before 1/1/02. The notice was accepted by complainant on 6/12/01. The amount was not taken back by complainant. So the claim of complainant on the basis of reduction of interest is time barred. There was no correction of interest rate by respondent in the deposit receipt as stated by complainant. The original of deposit receipt is kept in the respondent firm. There is no correction of interest rate and the complainant is keeping duplicate receipt. There was no material alteration done in the duplicate receipt kept by complainant. On 26/8/05 the complainant withdrawn Rs.12,500/- out of the deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent is not liable to give 18% interest. Hence dismiss.
3. The averments in the additional counter are that the reduction of interest rate was intimated to complainant. It was considered by her and accepted the interest upto 31/3/06. From 9/12/09 onwards she is entitled to get only 6% interest. This respondent is not liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- or 18% interest. The deposit amount and the interest amount were accepted by complainant. So she is not entitled to get back any amount. Hence dismiss.
4. CC.723/08 is filed for the same purpose by another complainant. The counter averments are self same.
5. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
6. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibits R1 to R7 in CC.722/08 and Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibits R1 to R11 and oral testimony of RW1 in CC.723/08.
7. Points: Both the complaints are filed with regard to the dispute in interest rate. It is the case that on 31/12/08 the complainants had deposited Rs.2,00,000/- each with the respondent as kuri security deposit. The due date of the deposit receipts amount was 9/12/09. It is the case that the respondent unilaterally reduced the interest rate as 12% from 18%. According to complainants when the complainant had visited the respondent firm alongwith the deposit receipt the respondent made material alteration by scoring letters 18% as 12%. This act of respondent is challenging by the complainants in both the cases.
8. According to complainants the respondent had reduced the interest rate to12% from 18% after scoring off 18% in the deposit receipts. In both the cases the complaints were amended and the respondent filed an additional counter also. It is the case of respondent that the amount accepted from the complainants are towards kuri security deposit receipt and the interest rate fixed was 18%. But from 1/1/02 it was reduced to 12% as per the direction of RBI and Finance department. It is the definite case of respondent that this was intimated to complainant vide registered notices and they did not act in contrary. As per Exhibit R4 in CC.722/08 the respondent had intimated the complainant about the reduction of interest rate to 12% and if she is not willing for the same she can withdraw the deposit amount before 1/1/02. Exhibit R5 is the acknowledgement card by the complainant. The document produced in CC.723/08 also. So the case of complainants that when they had gone to the respondent firm and then the respondent had corrected the interest rate as 12% in the deposit receipt is seen false. If that be so the complainant can very well enter into the box and adduce oral evidence. They failed to prove this aspect. More over Exhibit P1 to P3 documents produced by complainants are not at all sufficient to prove their claim.
9. As stated by respondent original deposit receipts are with them and there is no scoring or there is no material alteration as alleged by complainant. So they are not entitled to get the amounts claimed. More over respondent has the contention in both the cases that the complainants are not entitled to get any amount because the interest along with deposit amounts were accepted by complainants.
10. RW1 is examined in CC.723/08 and is admitted that the complainant had withdrawn only Rs.12,500/-. The complainants had withdrawn amounts of Rs.12,500/- each. It is his definite stand that after reducing Rs.12,500/- the balance is with company. It is made clear by him that in the additional counter it is stated that the deposit amount and interest received by complainants is Rs.12,500/- and the interest and not Rs.2,00,000/- with interest. So it is clarified by the respondent company itself that the balance amount after deducting Rs.12,500/- is with the company and the complainants are entitled to get back these amounts. There are no averment in lawyer notice and complaints about the payment of deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the complainants. It is stated only in the additional counter. It is true that additional counter was filed after amendment of the complaint by adding the prayer of return of deposit amount. In the additional counter the respondent stated that the entire deposit amount had taken back by the complainant. But in the box it had deposed by RW1 that the entire deposit amounts were not taken back by the complainants. So the version of RW1 in the box should be believed and accepted. As stated earlier the complainants are not entitled to get 18% interest. The respondent also produced Exhibits R10 and R11 documents to show due amount to company. But those documents cannot be relied because the respondent has no case in their version and reply notice about any amount due. If there was any amount due as claimed in Exhibits R10 and R11 the respondent company will definitely take that contention in the reply notice and in the version itself. But they have no such case like that. So these documents cannot relied. It is found that deficiency in service committed by respondent and the complaints are liable to be partly allowed.
11. In the result both the complaints are partly allowed and the respondent is directed to return Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) each to both the complainants after reducing Rs.12,500/- eachwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint that is 25/9/08 till realization with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each 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 9th day of December 2013.
