IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 10/2010 (Filed on 20.01.2010) Between: K.C. Stanislaus, K.K. Gloria House, Mundukottackal P.O., Pathanamthitta. .... Complainant. And: 1. Managing Director, Valuthundil Financiers, Opp. Private Bus Stand, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. 2. Manager, Valuthundil Financiers, First Floor, Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that the first opposite party is a private bank in the name and style ‘Valuthundil Financiers’ having its Head Office at Konni and the first opposite party is represented by its Managing Director. The second opposite party is the Manager of the first opposite party, Pathanamthitta Branch. The complainant along with his wife Sosamma Stanislaus jointly deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 18.03.2006 as fixed deposit for a period of 2 years at the rate of 15% vide FDR No.590/5/05with opposite parties. Again on 17.05.2006, the complainant jointly with Sosamma Stanislaus deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- as fixed deposit for 3 years at the rate of 15% per annum vide FDR No.612/06/00/06with opposite parties. The complainant received the interest of the said F.D’s till 18.06.2007. Thereafter, the opposite parties have not given the monthly interest as per the terms of the F.D. receipts. Because of the non-payment of the monthly interest, the complainant demanded the release of the entire fixed deposit amount with its interest. But opposite parties evaded the payment by saying lame excuses. The non-payment of the fixed deposit amount even after its maturity is a clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for the realisation of the said fixed deposit amounts with its agreed rate of interest along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of this proceedings. 3. In this case, opposite parties have not entered appearance irrespective of paper publication against them. Hence they were declared as exparte. 4. On the basis of the averments in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard. 6. The Point: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the fixed deposit receipt No.590/5/05 dated 18.03.2006 for Rs.60,000/- for a period of 2 years at the rate of 10% per annum issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant and his wife Sosamma Stanislaus. Ext.A2 is another fixed deposit receipt No. 612/06/00/06 dated 17.05.2006 for a period of 3 years at the rate of 8.5% per annum issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant and his wife Sosamma Stanislaus. 7. On the basis of the allegations against the opposite parties raised by the complainant, we have perused the materials on record and found that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,20,000/- as fixed deposits vide Exts.A1 and A2. The allegation is that the fixed deposit amount and its interest from July 2007 was not given irrespective of the complainant’s demand for the same. Since the opposite parties are exparte, the complainant’s allegations stand proved as unchallenged. Nothing on record shows that the opposite parties had returned the fixed deposit amount or its interest to the complainant. The non-payment of the complainant’s fixed deposit amount and its agreed rate of interest by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. 2nd opposite party is only an employee of the 1st opposite party. In the absence of any cogent evidence against the second opposite party, we find no deficiency of service against the second opposite party. 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the first opposite party is liable to the complainant and hence this complaint is allowable against the first opposite party. 9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first opposite party is directed to pay Exts.A1 and A2 fixed deposit amount with its agreed rate of interest from July 2007 onwards along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the whole amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till the whole realisation. Since the interest for the fixed deposit amount is allowed, no separate compensation is ordered. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of August, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Fixed deposit receipt No.590/5/05 dated 18.03.2006 for Rs.60,000/- A2 : Fixed deposit receipt No. 612/06/00/06 dated 17.05.2006 for Rs.60,000/-. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to:- (1) K.C. Stanislaus, K.K. Gloria House, Mundukottackal P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Managing Director, Valuthundil Financiers, Opp. Private Bus Stand, Konni P.O., Pathanamthitta. (3) Manager, Valuthundil Financiers, First Floor, Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta Branch, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
