None appears for the appellant. Since it is a matter of 2004  and the order does not require to call for DFR, we are inclined to dispose of the case at this stage.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the  OP has widely circulated leaflets inviting persons for the deposit of some amount in fixed deposit scheme floated by the O.P and complainant had deposited sum of Rs.6,700/- on 2.03.2001 which was to be matured on 01.03.2003 for Rs.9,167.53.After maturity the complainant wanted to  get back the maturity amount. The O.P refused to pay the maturity amount. So the complaint was filed.

4.      The O.P appeared through their advocate and admitted deposit of such amount. It is only stated by the O.P that he had intimated all his customers  through  news papers to hold down these matters till Mr.Sitanath Kisku who was acting Branch Manager of the Firm at Baripada submit all relevant papers and documents of all depositors to the company.

5.      After hearing of both parties the complaint was allowed.

6.      It has been pleaded in the appeal memo  that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by allowing the complaint. Acceding to the appellant  the concerned officer Sitanath Kisku was  directed to submit all the record before the appellant. Otherwise the appellant  is not in a position to return the claim amount to the depositor.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P but the learned District Forum did not appreciate the fact, for which the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7.      Considered the appeal memo and impugned order.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.6,700/- on 02.03.2001 which was matured on 01.03.2003 for Rs.9,167.53. If the concerned employee of the O.P did not come forward  to joinawaiting his arrival itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We are of the view  that the impugned order is correct and liable to be confirmed. 

9.      Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.