KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                     VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM   

                                               APPEAL NO.916/2005

                              JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                --  MEMBER

1.      T.Narayana Pai,

Managing Director,

Manip Finance Corporation,                     --  APPELLANTS

Registered Office, Manipal House,

Manipal P.O, Udupi – 576119.

2.      K.K.Pai, Director of Business

          Audit Executive, Manipal,

          Finance Corporation Ltd.

               (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

                    Vs.

Shankaranarayana Prasanna,

S/0 S.Rema Bhat,

Saradhka House, Adyandhka P.O,                    --  RESPONDENT

Bantwal  Taluk, D.K.Distrit.

                                                          JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHAN U,PRESIDENT

          The appellants/opposite parties are the Financiers in OP.43/05 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod.  The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.9000/- with interest at 10.5% per annum from 8.11.01 and also to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.9000/- on 8.11.01 vide Shreyus Certificates with interest offered at 10.5% per annum.  On getting information of unfair trade practices by the opposite parties, the complainant demanded  refund of the amount deposited which was declined.

          3. In the version filed, it is contended that the maturity date of the service are only on 8.11.06.  Hence, the complaint filed is premature and liable to be dismissed.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5.

          5. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A3 FD certificates and copy of the lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties.   It is seen that no reply has been issued  by the opposite parties.  It is noted by the Forum that opposite parties/appellants did not contest the case as such except sending a version through post.   PW1 was not cross examined.

          6. The point is stressed by the appellants is that complainant had demanded premature refund of the fixed deposit amount and that the maturity date is 8.11.06.  Of-course, we find that the complaint has been filed in 2005 ie; before the date of maturity.  All the same, by now the date of maturity of the certificates is over.  Further, there is no justification for not returning the amount at all.   If there was any term in the certificates  with respect to the premature release of the amount.  The same could have been enforced.  But there was no attempt on the part of the opposite parties to release the amount  on such terms also.  The apprehension of the complainant that he may not be able to get back the amount cannot be said to be misplaced.  The amount of compensation is ordered only Rs.1000/-.

          7. In the circumstances, we find that no inference in the order of the forum is called for.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU  --  PRESIDENT

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER

s/L