KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:562/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:12..03..2010. PRESENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Jalaludheen, S/o Noorukutty Rowther, 8/604 Ayyappankavu, Kadamkode, : APPELLANT Karingarapully, Palakkad. (By Adv: Smt.Suja) Vs. The Secretary, The Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank, : RESPONDENT Kalleppully Branch, Palakkad. JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:14th August 2009 of the CDRF, Palakkad in CC:18/09. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank, Kalleppully Branch, Palakkad in issuing fixed deposit receipt for the FD amount of Rs.1.lakh which was deposited on 11/11/2002. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying and disputing the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party categorically denied the case of the complainant regarding the FD effected on 11/11/2002. The case of the complainant is that he deposited a sum of Rs.1.lakh by way of fixed deposit on 11/11/2002 and that he did not get the FD receipt for that amount. The A1 lawyer notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite party only on 30/11/2006. Thus, the demand for the fixed deposit receipt was made after a lapse of more than 4 years. The case of the complainant that he was requesting repeatedly for issuance of the FD receipt cannot be believed without any supporting material. On the other hand, Exts.B1 to B12 documents produced from the side of the opposite party bank would belie the case of the complainant regarding FD effected by him on 11/11/2002. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that there is no piece of paper available on record to substantiate the case of the complainant regarding the deposit effected on 11/11/2002. It is also to be noted that the complainant has not preferred to enter the witness box and to face the cross-examination by the opposite party/bank. It is further to be noted that the complainant has not even filed an affidavit in support of his pleadings in the complaint. Thus, the Forum below has rightly rejected the case of the complainant and thereby the complaint in CC:18/07 was dismissed. It is against the aforesaid order passed by the Forum below the present appeal is preferred. The appellant could not adduce any evidence in support of his case. So, the present appeal deserves nothing but dismissal. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
