<br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version, in that it is admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-on 28/06/2001 as per "Athulya Deposit Scheme". The opposite party is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and governed by the concerned rules and regulations, which are in force from time to time The Athulya Deposit Scheme is one among the several schemes launched by the opposite party with the approval of the Co-operative Department. The maturity date of the deposit effected by the complainant under the above said scheme was worked out in accordance with the rate of interest that the amounts deposited carry during the relevant period. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the opposite party has every right to change the rate of interest and to re-schedule the maturity date and thereby to modulate the scheme accordingly. The complainant joined as a beneficiary of the scheme and he had agreed to abide by the concerned rules and regulations issued time to time by the Co-operative Department vide letter dated 28/06/2002. The interest on deposits varies in accordance with the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. While the above said scheme was launched the deposits were earning interest at the rate of 15% to 17%. Over the years the rate of interest was considerably reduced.. Section 63 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the accounts of the opposite party are subject to audit by the Co-operative Department. In the light of the audit report pertaining to the relevant period, the department called upon the opposite party to close the deposit schemes, which are causing heavy loss on account of the reduction of rate of interest. There upon the Director Board of the opposite party decided to revise the rate of interest applicable to "Athulya Deposit Scheme" and to modulate the same vide resolution No.1272 dated 20/07/2006, which was later modified vide resolution No.1281 dated 7/08/2006. There arose a series of complaints from the part of the beneficiaries, the Director Board of the bank decided to modity the resulution No.1272 dated 7/08/2006. Accordingly, those whodecided to close the deposits will get interest at the rate 16.66% upto the period 31/07/2006 as far as deposits for a period of one year are concerned and at the rate of 14.29% upto the period 31/07/2006 for the deposits for a period of 7 years and thereafter simple interest at the rate of 9% for every completed months and the complainant and all other beneficiaries were duly informed of the same. There upon the complainant closed his deposit and he was given an amount of Rs.97,175/- on 14/09/2007. He accepted the payment without any protest and a receipt was given. Hence he is estoped from raising any contrary allegations. Hence the complainant has no locus standi to file the above complaint and he is not at all entitled to get any relief as prayed. <br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT : As per the written version of the opposite party, this dispute does not tanatamount to a dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. As per the written version, it is admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 28/06/2001 under the Athulya Deposit Scheme, launched by the opposite party. The deposit was for 72 months. Ext.P1 is the copy of fixed deposit receipt produced by PW1. It is written in Ext.P1 that the deposit will be due on 28/06/2007. There is no terms and conditons of the bank is written in the said receipt. Ext.P2 is the letter given from the bank stating that the interest rate is reduced by the bank Director Board. Ext.P3 is the office copy of the lawyer notice issued to the opposite party by the complainant for getting back the money as per the deposit. Ext.P4 is the reply notice issued by the bank. As per the evidence of PW1, the complainant deposited the amount for the educational purpose of his daughter. He had availed loan from the fixed deposit for the same purpose and the loan amount has repaid with hike interest to the same bank. He is a taxi driver and he was not aware of the conditions of the bank. The oppopsite party never explained the conditions of the bank at the time of depositing the amount. The opposite party raised a contention that as per Ext.R3, which is duly signed by the complainant, which is an application for opening an account in the Athulya Deposit Scheme in the bank, in which it is agreed by the complainant to comply with bank's rules for the time being for the contact of such accounts. As per the evidence of complainant, the opposite party asked the complainant to sign in the applicaion for appointing a nominee in the loan account. There is no reason to disbelieve the same because the document itself says the same. There is no document produced by the ooposite party to show that the Government requested the opposite party to reduce the interest rate of Athulya scheme.The decision taken by the bank director board produced by the opposite party as Ext.R4, in which it is written that there is a Government order to reduce the interest in the loans giving from the bank. In order to compensate the loss caused in interest rate by the launching of One Time Settlement scheme, the bank decided to reduce interest rate of Athulya Deposit Scheme. So there is no direction from the government to reduce the interest of the Athulya Deposit Scheme. It is only a decision of the bank director Board. The Complainant was attracated by the advertisement of the bank by the Athulya deposit scheme and he started an account in the sschme. Reducing the interst which was agreed before, which lost the opportunities of the complainant to invest the amount in any other field and it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The complainant already received Rs.97,175/- from the bank as per Ext.P5.So we think that the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.2,815/- with interest.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result. the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to give back the balance amount of Rs.2,825/- to the complainant with 12% interest from 28/06/2007 and also Rs.1,000/- for the cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of June,2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />