1. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to release of his deposited amount alongwith with compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that   he had deposited Rs.30,000/- before the O.P.No.1  for a period of one year  and the maturity value of the  deposit amount was Rs.31,841/-and the maturity date was 21.3.2009.The O.P.no.1   issued fixed deposit receipt vide  No. 004896   on 21.3.2008.After completion of maturity date  the complainant rushed to the O.PNo.1 and  approached for release of his maturity amount, but the O.P.No.1  assured  him for payment  and in this way  the payment has been held up with assurance to made payment by him. The complainant being illiterate person could not take any steps and waited for years together for refund of his maturity money and at last filed this case before this forum for payment of his matured amount alongwith compensation. The complainant filed a limitation petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay at the time of filing of the case. It has been allowed at the time of admission of the case.
3.  After being noticed, the .O.P.No2 appeared and filed their Witten statement in this case. The case  of the O.PNo.1 is that the case is not maintainable  against the O.P.They have denied  the allegation of the  complainant  and pray for dismissal of the case.The case of the O.PNo.2   is that  on verification of fixed deposit register  Volume  2/129 no entry in the  subsidiary register. The O.P No. 2 also denied the allegation of the complainant and pray for dismissal of the case. The case of the O.P.no.3 is that on verification of book account regarding deposit of Rs.30, 000/- for fixed deposit of the complainant on 21.3.2008 the challan is not available and in the F.D. register was found no entry in the subsidiary register. On verification of the cash book of the dtd.21.3.2008 no transaction was found of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited by the complainant.
4. The point for determination whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps. Whether the O.Ps caused any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for non-payment of his deposited amount.

      The complainant filed Xerox copy of the receipt vide receipt No004896 of Rs.30,000/- issued by the O.PNo.1 on  dtd 21.3.2008 . The O.Po.2 filed the  cash book register of 31.3.2008  where there  is no entry of deposit    was made, but at  the time of final hearing the  complainant filed a petition for cause production of  the book  receipt  where the O.PNo.1 had issued the receipt  to the complainant. And after noticed the O.PNo.1 filed the Xerox copy of the fixed deposit receipt counter foil issued by the then O.PNo.1 against the complainant at the time of issue of the F.D. receipt. The O.PNo.1 has also produced the original book and given the counter foil to that effect. Perused the same documents.     The counter foil submitted by the O.PNo.1 bears the same number, same date and same amount of the  receipt which proves that the complainant has deposited the same before  the O.PNo.1.As the deposit found to be genuine ,  it is the  duty of the O.PNo1to return back the amount to the complainant. Though in the meantime, no payment has been made by them which proves deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.

         Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant, submission made by the O.Ps so also documents filed by the parties, we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.Ps to release the maturity amount of Rs.31,841/-(Rupees thirty one thousand eight hundred forty one) with  5%  interest per annum from 21.3.2009 till realization, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.Ps for realization of awarded amount. This case is disposed of accordingly

         Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the day 14th day of December, 2016.