By Smt. Padmini sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that : Complainant was a kuri subscriber of respondent firm. The kuri had started from 1/1/1990 and the total instalment was 40. For each instalment the amount had to paid was Rs.3000/-. Complainant had auctioned the kuri on 9th instalment and after the deductions he had received Rs.53,490/-. The title deed of the property was given as security. Later the title deed released and Rs.30,000/- deposited as fixed and furnished as security. The interest fixed to 15%. When the kuri period was over the complainant demanded the balance amount from the deposit. But not paid stating no amount is balance . Some amount is due to the respondent. Hence this complaint. OP.431/03 was filed for the same relief and withdrawn with liberty to file fresh case.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter in brief is that the complaint is baseless and without reason. There were 12 instalments due from the complainant from 29 to 40. Because of his default he is liable to remit the entire balance instalment and the penal interest. On 1/1/03 the kuri had terminated and for the defaulted instalments he had to pay Rs.3000/- for each instalment and penal interest. Thus he is liable to pay Rs.45,360/-. As per the kuri security Karar he was entitled for 15% interest and he had received interest up to 1/4/00. From 1/4/00 to 1/1/03 the petitioner was entitled for Rs.12,375/- as interest. Hence he is entitled for Rs.47,375/-. But at the time of termination of kuri, the petitioner was liable to remit Rs.45,360/-. So Rs.2985/- is due from the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are :<br /> 1) Is the complainant is entitled for the deposited amount and interest?<br /> 2) Is there deficiency in service on the part of respondent ?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and Exhibits R1 to R5.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1 In the complaint, the complainant is claimed for return of the Fixed Deposit amount and interest. He also sated that 12 instalments were due. It is his liability to remit the kuri amount which was earlier received by him. Exhibit P1 is the pass book which shows that from 29th instalment onwards there was no remittance. He has accepted interest on two occasions. He was a defaulter of kuri. So he is liable to pay the penal interest. Nothing is stated about this in the complaint. The complainant is liable to clear off the kuri defaults. In the complaint he had casually stated that he is entitled for some amount. No precise amount and no calculation is there. He also admitted that 12 instalments were due. For each instalment he is liable to pay Rs.3000/- and also penal interest. According to the respondent there is nothing due from them to the petitioner and some amount is to be paid by the complainant. So we arrive at conclusion that there is no amount due from the respondent. This point is found against the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2 From the above discussion it is very clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result complaint is dismissed. No cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 13th day of August 2008.<br />