SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Smt.Raji Pramod, W/o Promod has filed this complaint on 12.5.2008 before the Forum through her Power of Attorney Hold Smt. Renuka Kunjumon against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The opposite parties are engaged in the administration and Management of the concern M/s.Sree Kandakarna Temple and is engaged in the business of banking including accepting money deposit, savings banks accounts lending of money for interest to the general public and also engaged in the gold loan business. She is having a savings bank a/c vide A/c No.1179/ folio No.225/26 from 10.8.2004 onwards with the 4th opposite party, and it was on the basis of the instance and compulsion of opposite parties 2, 3, 5 to 7. She was assured to provide 18% interest per annum for the said deposits; and as such she had also made periodical deposits and withdrawals in the above account. The 4th opposite party issued Pass Book to her and the present balance comes to Rs.2 lakhs as on 16.3.2006 with future interest. Since there was default of interest, she approached the opposite parties on 2.12.2007 to return the deposited amount with interest. But she has not get back the amount. Hence this complaint seeking relief. 2. Notices were sent to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and opposite party 2 filed version. Other opposite parties 3 to 7 are absent. Considering their absence; they were set exparte by this Forum. 3. In the version of the 2nd opposite party, it is stated that Sree Kandakarna Kshethra Yogam has no nexus whatsoever with Sreepadam Funds and that Sreepadam Funds is not an association established controlled and administered by the Kandakarna Kashethra Yogam. It is stated that both Kshethra Yogam and Funds are having separate bye laws and are functioned controlled and administered on the basis of their respective Bye Laws and their rights and liabilities are mutually different. It is further stated that due to the mal administration and misappropriation happened in the Sreepadam Funds, the depositors have formed an action council. In the general body a committee was formed to control the yogam and they are non working to control the yogam, and present complaint was filed without impleading the present committee members. It is further stated that he is not liable for the deficiency in service. There was no transaction between him and the complainant. 4. Considering the contentions of the 2nd opposite party; this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Compensation and costs if any. 5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 and A2 marked and she was examined and cross examined by opposite parties 1 and 2. Ext.A1 is the original Pass Book issued to the complainant at the time of initial deposit. Ext.A1 document shows the details of interest paid and the total balance amount outstanding (Rs.2 lakhs) in the name of the complainant. The Pass Book was signed by the Chairman of the Sreepadam Funds and sealed – (A/c No.1179/- - Folio No.225/26). Ext.A2 is the original Power of Attorney of the complainant given to Smt. Renuka Kunjumon. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have not produced any documentary evidence or any proof affidavit. 6. On a perusal of the entire matter of this case and on a verification of the documents in evidence; it can be seen that the complainant had and a/c with the opposite parties – A/c No.1179/Folio No.225/26. Opposite parties have issued Pass Book (Ext.A1) at the time of initial deposit amount It shows the interest paid by the opposite parties to the complainant and it further shows the balance outstanding amount (Rs.2 lakhs). Since there was failure on the part of the opposite parties in repayment interest, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the balance deposited amount and its interest. But the opposite parties were not shown any sincere attempt to return the amount. The opposite parties had taken a delay tactics by offering several promises to return the amounts. This will be treated as cheating and there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. They are fully bound to repay the entire amount and agreed rate of interest to the complainant. The opposite parties have no right to retain the amount without repayment. The contentions raised by opposite party 2 are without any locus standi and it has no substance and so it cannot be accepted as valid ground for denial of repayment of amounts to the complainant. The entire action on the part of the opposite parties are wholly illegal and unauthorized. So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant since there is denial of repayment of amounts to the complainant in time. Hence, we are fully convinced that the allegations are genuine and complaint is to be allowed with compensation and costs. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from 16.03.2006 till the date of payment of the entire amount, and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant for her mental agony, pain and sufferings, loss and inconvenience due to the deficiency in service negligence by way of non-payment of amount with interest in time by the opposite parties to the complainant and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2009. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT.N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Renuka Kunjumon (Witness) Ext.A1 - Original Pass Book Ext.A2 - Original Power of Attoney of the complainant Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:- | 
