Sri.K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 15879/- with interest.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows: The complainant had a fixed deposit with District Co.op: Rubber & Agricultural Marketing Society, Taliparamba for Rs 15879/-. The amount was deposited on 1.8.2005 for one year. The amount was matured on 1.8.2006. Though the complainant approached the Secretary and President several times they did not make payment except promises after promises . Hence this complaint for the amount with interest.<br /> The opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party admitted the deposit of the complainant. The opposite party states in the version that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the opposite party has not paid the amount on request made by the complainant. The opposite party contended that no demands have been made by the complainant as alleged in the complaint.<br /> The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1.<br /> Admittedly the complainant deposited the amount of RS 15879 with the opposite party. The deposit was fixed for one year. The oral testimonyof PW1, the admission in the vrsion and Ext.A1 proves the fixed deposit. The opposite party admitted the amount, date of deposit, due date and rate of interest. As per the conditions of the fixed deposit the oppositeparty is liable to return the amount with interest @ 5% on 1.8.2006, the due date. The evidence given by the complainant is enough to believe that the opposite party did not make payment on demand. That is the reason why complainant was compelled to approach this Forum. If the opposite party is ready to make payment, opposite party could have paid the amount even after filing the case. The complaint was filed in the year 2006. The oppositeparty has made an attempt to say that money could have been paid if the demand for repayment was placed before the opposite party properly. This shows that opposite party defended the case not with clean hands. The opposite party has not tried to explain the reason for the delay of payment of the amount after maturity. When opposite party tried to say that the complainant did not properly demand to repay the amount, nothing has stated about intimation of maturity notice obliged to be sent to the depositor. The non payment of fixed deposit amount after the due date in this case is unjustifiable and we are not hesitating to say that this is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Thus the opposite party is liable to pay the amount of fixed deposit Rs 15879/- with interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of deposit to the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled for cost of this proceedings Rs 500/-.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 15879/- with interest @ 5% per annum from 1.8.2005 to the date of payment together with a sum of Rs 500/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-- MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Photo copy of the fixed deposit receipt no.1725 dt. 1.8.2005 issued by the opposite party<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainnt<br /> PW1. Complainant.<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br />