The complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- with the respondent finance on 17.7.99 vide receipt No.628/99. The rate of interest fixed was 14%. The interest till 30.6.03 was received on 10.3.2005. After that no interest was received. The deposit amount and interest was demanded several times but not returned so far. So the complainant was forced to send a lawyer notice on 6.10.05 and no reply. Hence the complaint.

 

            2. The respondents-1 to 5 filed counter to the effect that the complaint is barred by limitation. The respondent firm had received the deposit as loan and the principal amount is due on 17.7.2002. The interest is paid only upto 30.6.2002. The claim is time barred. The complaint was filed only in January 2007. The averment in the complaint that the interest was paid on 10.3.05 is absolutely wrong and falsely intended to escape the time bar. That cannot be permitted. As the claim itself is time barred the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is the complaint time barred?

(2)   If not, any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?

(3)   Other reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 on the part of complainant and no evidence adduced by the respondents.

 

            5. The first point to decide is the limitation of complaint. The respondent filed their counter by only raising the contention of bar of limitation. According to them the complaint is time barred because the respondent firm had received the deposit as loan and the principal amount is due on 17.7.02. The interest is paid upto 30.6.2002. The complaint was filed only in January 2007. According to the complainant she has received interest till 10.3.2005. But according to her the cause of action has arose on 6.10.05. But there is no acknowledgement of liability on Ext. P1. So it cannot be taken as a beginning of the cause of action. The complainant produced Ext. P3 the copy of lawyer notice demanding the amount and the postal receipt would show that Ext. P3 was sent on 6.10.05. So the cause of action started from 6.10.05. The complaint filed on 3.5.07 is well within the period of limitation. In the case of deposit the cause of fresh action will arise from the date of demand also. So there is no bar of limitation.

 

            6. The second point to decide is the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. According to the complainant, the amount deposited is not returned and also some interest. Ext. P1 the fixed deposit receipt would show that Rs.15,000/- was deposited on 17.7.99 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. There is no denial of the case of complainant in the counter. The only contention raised is the bar of limitation. Since there is no return of the amount, the complainant is entitled to get the amount with interest. The non-payment of the amount is deficiency in service.

 

            7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return the Ext. P1 amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30.6.2002 till realization with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) 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 5th day of March 2010.