The complainant filed a petition U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

Brief facts of the case is that :-

The complainant was a proprietor of Rice Mill, Dumerpani under Nuapada District.   As per the instruction of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited security money of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) by Demand Draft bearing No. 308486, dated 08.12.2008  in the name of O.P. No. 1.  But when the complainant claimed before the O.P. No. 2 & 3 to return his security money, they did not respond on it.

Basing on that, the complainant claimed for reliefs as prayed for.

The complainant has filed the documents as under :-

1)    Attested xerox copy of Letter No. 426 dt. 16.03.2015 as (Annexure-1).

2)    Attested xerox copy of Letter No. 1531 dt.06.11.2015 as (Annexure-2).

          Being noticed, O.P. No. 1 & 2 have filed their written version through their Advocate and stated that the security is retained in the office of the opposite parties till final calculation with respect to their milling charges, transportation charges and other miscellaneous charges are drawn up.  As such the security deposit detained with the opposite parties could not be refunded to the complainant.  After completed  the official calculation, the security deposit shall be refunded after deducting the amount if any recoverable from the complainant without any delay. But  they denied the rest of the claim of the complainant.

          The Advocate for O.P. No. 1 & 2 have filed the documents as under:-

1)    Attested Xerox true copy of Cheque bearing No. 001009, dated 24.01.2019 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) as (Annexure-A),

2)    Attested Xerox true copy of Bill No. 373, dated 31.12.2018 as (Annexure-B).

After received the notice, O.P. No. 3 has not appeared in this case.  So O.P. No. 3 set ex-parte.

     In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

I.     Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties  ?

II.   To what relief, the complainant is entitled to  ?

ISSUE No. I.

          On perusal of case records, it is seen that the complainant deposited security money of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) by Demand Draft bearing No. 308486, dated 08.12.2008 as he was a proprietor of Sri Shiv Shankar Rice Mill under the District of Nuapada.  Thereafter on 27.01.2018, the complainant claimed before O.P. No. 2 & 3 to refund the aforesaid security money to him.

          After verification of the official records by O.P. No. 1 & 2, O.P. No. 2 issued a Cheque bearing No. 001009, dated 24.01.2019 amounting of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) in the name of complainant which is Annexure-A.

          In another factual aspect is that the complainant has received the above cheque as Annexure-A on 31.01.2019 from O.P. No. 2 without raised any objection in Annexure-B.

          So it is treated that the complainant has no any further claim as he has satisfied on it.

          Advocate for complainant as well as advocate for O.P. No. 1 & 2 have argued in this case in support of their claim.

 Perused the documents of both the parties, we found that O.P. No. 1 & 2 have paid the security money to the complainant who acknowledged the same on 31.01.2019 in Annexure-B.

          So, we are of considered opinion that there is no any deficiency in service by the opposite parties and as such the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in this case.

ISSUE No. II.

          It is clear crystal that the complainant is not entitled to get any further relief in this case.

          Accordingly, the case is disposed off.

          Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the  27th     day of  September  2019.