K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to renew the fixed deposit, compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant is operating S.B. Account No. 13682 in the Opposite parties bank hiring their service and as such is a Consumer. The above S.B. Account was opened on behalf of The Latin Catholic Association of Kollam Unit, in the name of the complainant. Direction was given at the time that the Account will be operated by complaint alone or by the complainant and one Mr. J Francis jointly. The above condition was confirmed by the opposite parties also. On 20-11-03 the complainant has deposited Rs.75,000/- in fixed deposit with F.D.No.15024 for the period of one year from 20-11-03 with the opposite parties interest @ 8% per anuum. When the fixed deposit matured the Complainant on 29-11-04 sent a letter requesting to renew the fixed deposit. It was also informed that the original fixed deposit is misplaced. But the opposite parties did not send any reply. So on 23-12-04 another letter enclosing a Photostat copy of the fixed deposit was sent for which also there was no reply. The complainant has every right to operate the account and withdraw the same. The complainant there upon issued a legal notice. The notice was though accepted by the opposite parties, they did not renew Fixed Deposit receipt. The above act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> Opposite parties 1&2 filed a joint version conducting, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The disputed fixed deposit receipt was in the name of Latin Catholic Association of Kollam Unit. Since the above organization is not made a party, the complaint is bad for joinder of necessary party. The complainant was informed that fixed deposit would be renewed on production of the original. The Latin Catholic Association informed the opposite parties that the fixed deposit is in their name and there from the amount may be transferred in the account of the Associations S.B Account No. 8713. The complaint is filed as an experimental measure. Hence the Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P8 marked on the side of the Complainant<br /> DW1 was examined and Exhibit D1 was marked on the side of Opposite parties <br /> <br /> The points that would araise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Releifs and cost?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points:-<br /> <br /> The complaints case is that he deposited Rs.7,5000/- in the Fixed deposit of opposite party for a period of one year from 20.11.93. Exhibit D1 is the Fixed Deposit Receipt.<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that fixed deposit was made by the complainant in the name of Latin Catholic Association of Kollam unit. Dw1 has stated in cross-examination that the amount deposited in the Fixed Deposit is the money of the complainant. Exhibits P1 is the letter showing condition for operating the SB account in the name of the Latin Catholic Association and exhibits P1(a) is the condition. The first condition is that the account is to be operated by the complainant and one J. Francis. The 2nd condition is that it will be operated by the complainant alone. There is absolutely nothing is Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) that the complainant is operating the said account in any official capacity. No material was produced by the opposite parties to show that the conditions is exhibits P1(a) has been subsequently changed. In fact, exhibit P1 (a) has been confirmed by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that when the Fixed Deposit matured he sent Exhibit P3 letter to the opposite party to renew the same. It was mentioned therein that Fixed Deposit receipt is misplaced. But neither the Fixed Deposit was renewed nor any reply given. So he again sent Exhibit P4 letter for which also there was no reply. Therefore Exhibit P6 advocate notice was issued. There upon the opposite party issued exhibit P7 letter in which the complainant was requested to produce the fixed deposit receipt for renewal and if the same is lost to file an affidavit. Accordingly the complainant filed exhibit P5 affidavit. Even after that the Fixed Deposit was not renewed Dw1 has infact admitted is cross examination that Fixed Deposit was not renewed till the filing of the complaint and even now it is not renewed. Dw1 further admitted that on several occasions Pw1 has contacted him in this regard. According to Dw1 there was a dispute between the complainant and one Francis and the Fixed Deposit was not renewed as the original was not produced.<br /> <br /> It is to be noted that Dw1 has no case that Pw1 has no right to ask renewal of the Fixed Deposit. In fact, Pw1has informed the opposite party in exhibit P3 that Fixed Deposit receipt is misplaced. If production of the original Fixed Deposit receipt was essential they could have given a reply to Pw1 to that effect. Exhibit P3 is dated 29.11.04. There after Pw1 has issued exhibit P4 on 23.12.04 and finally exhibit P6 Advocate Notice on 20.1.2005. It was after that on 17.6.05 exhibit P7 was issued. From exhibit P7 it is obvious that production of the original Fixed Deposit receipt is not mandatory and an affidavit is sufficient. If that be so, there is no reason to delay the renewed after repute of Exhibit P5. Exhibit P5 affidavit was filed by Pw1 in August 2005. Opposite parties have no case that exhibit P5 has any defect. After asking Pw1 to file an affidavit for renewal of the fixed deposit. The opposite parties are not justified in not renewing the same Dw1 has also no case that the fixed deposit was not renewed because of the dispute between pw1 and one Francis. Dw1 has admitted that the Fixed Deposit is not renewed, even on the date of his examination before this Forum and no reason is forth coming for not doing so. After issuing Exhibit P7 and after filing Exhibit P5 affidavit by Pw1 as directed by the opposite parties if the Fixed Deposit is not renewed, especially without any valid reasons, it is nothing but deficiency in service. It is worth pointing out in this context that the complainant has not sought for withdrawal of the amount but only to renew the deposit. As per Exhibit P1 (a) it can be seen that Pw1 has authority for the same. In these circumstances we are of the considered view that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to renew the Exhibit D1 Fixed Deposit as undertaken in Exhibit P7 and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> The order is to be complied with within one month. <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witness for the complaint<br /> PW1 Fr. Ferdinand Kayavil<br /> Ext. P1 : Letter dated 18.11.2003<br /> Ext. P1(a): Confirmation portion <br /> Ext. P(2): F.D. receipt<br /> Ext. P(3): Renewal. Letter dated 29.11.2004<br /> Ext: P(4): Renewal Letter dated 23.12.2004<br /> Ext. P(5): Affidavit<br /> Ext. P(6) : Advocate Notice<br /> Ext. P(7): Letter issued by opposite party dated 17.06.05<br /> Ext. P(8) : Pass book<br /> <br /> List of witness for the opposite party<br /> DW1 P. Joseph<br /> Ext. Dw1: Letter dated 13.12.2004<br /> Ext. Dw1: Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 20.11.04.<br /> <br /> <br />