By Smt Padmini Sudheesh, President <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had deposited on 2/9/03 an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the respondent firm as kuri security deposit for the future instalments of the kuri. The promised interest was 15% and upto 8th March 2009 interest was agreed to pay. But it was intimated by the respondent that the deposit has to be renewed on 19/7/03 and the interest after the renewal will be paid at the rate of 12%. The respondent has no right to reduce the interest. Complainant is entitled for 15% interest upto 8th March 2009. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The version is follows:<br /> There was no fixed deposit by the complainant. The sum was borrowed by the respondent by executing a pro-note. After three years the claim on pro-note will be barred by limitations. Petitioner is not entitled for 15% interest up to 8th March 2009. On 18/3/05 petitioner had received interest at the rate of 12% by voucher. After that he has no right to claim more interest. Hence the complainant is hit by the principle of estoppel. As per the rules of Reserve Bank the company has no authority to accept more amount in future liability. So Rs.4000/- has transferred to suspense account. No interest is available for this amount. Respondent is ready to return the amount stated in pro-note after furnishing sufficient security. Only after the termination of kuri complainant is entitled for interest. Hence dismiss.<br /> <br /> 3.The points for consideration are :<br /> 1) Is there any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice ?<br /> 2) If so reliefs and costs ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of exhibits P1 to P3 and exhibits R1 to R3. No other evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant had deposited Rs.40,000/- in the respondent firm as kuri security deposit. The amount was deposited to pay off the future instalments of the kuri. According to the petitioner this was deposited as kuri security deposit. Exhibit R2 is the concerned document. The respondent contended that exhibit R2 is a pro-note and not deposit. The counsel for respondent argued that exhibit R2 is a pro-note. On perusal of exhibit R2 it can be realized that exhibit R2 is not a pro-note and the intention is very clear to a deposit. Hence there is no need to the respondent company to borrow money from the complainant by executing a pro-note. Respondent has no case that money borrowed by pro-note. In the reply notice and in the counter respondent stated that if another security is furnished, they are ready to return the exhibit R2 amount. From this also it is clear that the deposit was made as kuri security. Company is cheating the people by printing this kind of forms. So the company is liable to provide compensation. So we come to a conclusion that exhibit R2 is a kuri security deposit and not a Promissory Note. The next aspect to be considered as the rate of interest. In exhibit R2 the rate of interest stated is 15%. After that on two occasions interest was received by the complainant. In exhibit R1 receipt it is written that interest 12% for Rs.36,000/-. There letters are in small size and can be seen that added later. The ink is also different from other letters. So these writing is added later. According to the respondent they had changed the interest as per Reserve Bank of India rules. But no evidence is before us to show that there were such rules as alleged by the respondents. The promised interest rate of 15% was seen from exhibit R2 receipt. Since the RBI rules are not produced this view is not acceptable. So the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 15%. The deficiency in service of the respondent is proved and thus respondent is answerable to that. <br /> <br /> 6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to provide 15% interest to the complainant for the deposited amount. Respondent is further directed to give Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards cost. Comply the order of cost and compensation within a month.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28th day of August 2008.<br /> <br />