JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the Op alleging deficiency in service in not settling the fixed deposit amount of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, prays for the settling of the fixed deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- for miscellaneous and litigation expenses. 

             Brief averments of the Complaint are;

            2.  That, the complainant alleged that the complainant had deposited a fixed deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- on 15.10.2010 with the fixed account in the OP-Branch. The receipt number is 31179 and the Membership number is V3A210635. The maturity of the fixed deposit was on 16.04.2013. The sum of the fixed deposit amount after maturity is Rs.40,000/-.

            That the complainant further alleged that after the maturity of the fixed deposit, the OP Branch has taken the Bond from her and gave the acknowledgement of it and even after completion of 6 months the OP has not paid the fixed deposit amount along with interest. Apart from this, the OP has closed the Branch in Koppal after 3 months of working in it. The complainant further alleged that when he went to OP-Branch and enquired, he did not respond to her properly and did not give sufficient reason in not giving him the fixed deposit amount. Due to their reason, the OP has committed unfair trade of practice and deficiency in service in not settling the fixed deposit amount after in maturity.

The complainant further alleged that a legal notice was issued through her counsel to OP on 17.02.2014 and the said notice is not served on him and came with an endorsement that the OP-Branch Office was closed and the said notice is returned back. Hence filed this complaint praying for settling the fixed deposit amount along with interest for Rs.40,000/- along with Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for miscellaneous and litigation expenses as prayed above.

3.         This Forum after admitting the complaint a notice was issued to the OP and the said notice was served upon him. The OP appeared before the Forum along with their counsel and filed Vakalatnama. The OP inspite of giving sufficient time for filing Written Version to the main petition, the OP failed to file the Written Version and hence was taken as Written Version not filed and posted for the evidence.

4.   On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points have been framed;

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service in not settling the fixed deposit amount after its maturity to him?
2. Whether the complainant further proves that she is entitled for the relief sought for?
3. What order?

      5.    To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself examined as PW-1 and she got marked documents as per EX A-1 to EX A-5 and closed their side evidence. The OP after giving sufficient time failed to lead this evidence on their side and hence was taken as evidence “NIL” and posted for arguments.

       6.   Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No. 1 :   In the Affirmative,

Point No. 2 :   In the Affirmative,

                  Point No. 3 : As per final Order for the following

REASONS

7.  POINT No. 1 and 2:  As these issues are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence, documents and arguments.

            8.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence, coupled with documents of respective parties on record.  It is the case of the complainants alleging deficiency in service in not settling the fixed deposit amount after its maturity, the complainant approached and claimed for the fixed deposit along with benefit of maturity and submitted the bond to the OP-Branch. But the OP has not settled the claim. Hence, the complainant alleges deficiency in service.

            9.         To prove the case of the complainant, the PW-1 has reiterated the complainant averments in her examination in Chief and in support of her case, she has produced the documents pertains to the acknowledgement received after the OP obtaining the original bond on 20.04.2013 which is marked as EX A-1. EX A-1 reveals that the Complainant is the holder of the property advance and it is clearly mentioned that the said plan is matured on 16.04.2013 and the maturity amount is of Rs.38,000/-. PW1 has further averred and deposed that an Agreement Deed has been made between the Complainant and the OP-Branch and the same is marked as EX A2 and the schedule of the agreement is marked as EX A-3. It has been clearly mentioned that the property advance to be refunded at the end of the scheme period if subscriber wont opt for any property i.e. the amount of Rs.40,000/-. But to disprove the said entries in EX A-1, EX A-2 and EX A-3, the OP has not produced any other cogent and corroborative evidence. Therefore, on perusal of the EX A-1 to EX A-3 which are the receipts of acknowledgement and Agreement Deed which have been produced by the Complainant which are issued in the name of the Complainant. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Complainant has fixed deposited the amount of Rs.20,000/- and the OP-Branch has offered to pay Rs.40,000/- after its maturity. This itself clearly goes to show that the said OP has not returned the fixed deposit amount even after its maturity date is completed. So also on perusal of the EX A-4, the legal notice which is sent by the counsel of the Complainant to the OP-Branch, the said notice is not served, because the OP had closed his branch office in Koppal within three months of their working and the said returned notice is marked as EX-A-5.  

            10.       The OP has failed to file their Written Version and no doubt the OP has not adduced any evidence. From this, it clearly shows that the OP has committed the deficiency of service.

            11.       The counsel for the Complainant has relied the citation reported in 2010 (1) CPR 62 which is passed by the Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in “Manipal Catholic Cooperative Society” V/s D.S.S. Palaniappan and Another.

                  “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 2 (1) (o), 14 (1) (d), 15 and 17 – Co-operatives – Fixed deposit – Non-payment of maturity amount – District Forum awarded sum of Rs.10,000 with 12% interest in addition to pay a compensation of Rs.8,000 with cost of Rs.1,000- When matter is established that complainant/ respondent has deposited the amount then it is for appellant/society to prove that society has not benefited or then Secretary misappropriated without reference to society – If the then Secretary had misappropriated amount, while he was holding post, then vicarious liability cannot be eclipsed – Non refund of maturity amount amounts to deficiency of service attracting Section 2 (1) (g) – Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain Complaint against cooperative societies – Impugned award upheld – Appeal dismissed.”

            The facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the facts and circumstances of the said citation is same and the Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission has held that failure to return maturity amount of fixed deposit by Bank/Cooperative Society amounts to deficiency of service.

            12.       On the contrary, as per the oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, the complainant prove that by way of filing the present Complaint the OP have not settled the fixed deposit amount after its maturity and have committed deficiency of service on the part of the OP’s as the Complainant alleged in their Complaint. The said allegation has been proved by the Complainant. Hence, in the light of above observations, the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly we constrained to hold Point No.1 in Affirmative.

            13.       In the light of observations made by us on Point No.1 and 2, since the Complainant filed the Complaint for deficiency of service with respect to the fixed deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- along with its maturity amount of Rs. in total of Rs.40,000/-. In the light of observations made by us while answering the Point No.1 in the affirmative, the present Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, we constrained to hold Point No.2 in affirmative. 

14. POINT NO.3 :   Hence in the result, we proceed to pass the following: 

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby partly allowed.
2. OP is directed to pay the fixed deposit amount after its maturity amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) along with interest of 09% p.a will be charged on the maturity amount from the date of filing of the Complaint and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for deficiency of service and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) towards physical and mental agony and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which 12% p.a interest will be charged from the date of filing of Complaint till realization.
3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 26^th day of April, 2016.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

EX A.5           Notice returned unserved

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.