PER SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant had deposited an amount of  Rs.35,000/- with the OP through installments, as recurring deposits scheme, for which, he was entitled for Rs.44,800/- after its maturity.  The amount was matured but the OP did not release the amount despite several requests and demands and were lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.   Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice..

2.                We have perused the record as to whether the complaint is to be admitted for regular hearing or not.  We are of the opinion that it is a baseless complaint filed by the complainant to harass the OP. There is no merit in this case and the same cannot be admitted for regular hearing.

3.             It is pertinent to mention here that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a statutory obligation to have a preliminary screening as to whether the complaint filed before it is maintainable. The only requirement is that the complaint should not be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the complainant, which in the present case has been provided. The law on this point is very much settled and in the decision given by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Original Petition No.19405 of 2000, decided on 14th July, 2006 and reported as 2007 CTJ 8 (Kerala High Court) (CP) wherein it has been specifically held that admission of a complaint before a District Forum or the State/ National Commission and appeal before the State/National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not automatic. The Forum/Commission has to consider the maintainability before admitting it and issue its notice to the opposite party/respondent.

4.             The main grouse of the complainant is that despite his several requests/demands, the OP did not release the above said maturity amount and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. In support of his contentions he has placed on record the copies of the receipts Annexure C-1 to C-20 to prove that a total sum of Rs.35,000/- has been deposited by him with the OP on different dates for the period from 6.11.2008 to 20.11.2009.

5.              It is pertinent to mention that during the course of initial hearing, the complainant was asked to produce the evidence to prove, if any complaint/request had been made by him or a copy of any letter/notice sent to the OP with respect to the present case but the complainant has failed to produce any. Nothing has been produced to prove, if the OP ever denied his request/complaint. Even this much has not been proved that he ever communicated with the OP for his case.

6.             After perusal of the record, we are of the view that the Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 placed on file by the complainant are just a matter of record and are no where applicable to hold the OP liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  Therefore, the oral assertions of the complainant without any cogent evidence cannot be taken into consideration against the OP to hold them liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. 

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The present complaint therefore cannot be admitted for regular hearing and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.