The main legal point established is the requirement for concrete evidence to support claims in financial disputes, and the court's reliance on the interpretation of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2002 in determining liability.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. A. Radha, Presiding Member-Opposite parties are the appellants who preferred this appeal against the order passed in C.C. No. 01/07 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents deposited Rs. 1 lakh as fixed deposit with the opposite parties on 1.9.2004 and the interest agreed by the opposite party was at the rate of 20% for 24 months and issued a fixed deposit receipt. It is also stated in the complaint that an amount of Rs. 3,55,419 was also deposited @ 20% in the joint name of the complainant’s husband and son Master Rohith. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite party assured that the amount shall be refunded along with interest @ 20% at any time. On 2.9.2006 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to refund the fixed deposit and its interest. The 2nd opposite party declined to refund the deposited amount. It came to the knowledge that on 22.4.2006 itself the 1st opposite party, financiers stopped its functioning and 1st opposite party absconded. Hence filed this complaint for Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3,55,419 @ 20% interest from April 2006 till disposal of the case. It is also prayed for Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,500 as cost of proceedings.

3. The opposite parties filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint and also denied any refund of fixed deposit.

4. The complainant examined as PW1 and Exbts.A1 and A2 were marked. The complaint was dismissed as the complainant is not competent to file the complaint as she had not produced authorization from the actual depositor. On appeal before the State Commission in Appeal No. 197/09 the matter was remanded to amend the cause title of the complaint and for production of authorization. On remand the complainant’s evidence was taken whereas opposite parties remained ex parte. This order was challenged by the opposite parties in Appeal No. 749/11 before the State Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter before the Forum Below which was allowed by this Commission on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000 and also to deposit Rs. 1 lakh before the Forum Below. On complying the condition, both parties appeared before the Forum below and contested the case by giving fresh evidence. At the evidence stage the complainant produced Exbts. A1 to A3.

5. Exbt.A1 is the fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 1 lakh and A3 is the passbook of Account No. 431 in the name of the complainant’s husband and her son issued by the opposite party. As per the passbook there is a total credit balance of Rs. 3,55,419.45 as on 6.4.2006. The opposite parties adduced evidence by examining DW1 to DW3. The Forum below on appreciation of evidence and documents allowed the complaint in part. This order is under challenge in this appeal.

6. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the complaint filed by the respondent is a concocted one and respondent is the 2nd wife of the depositor. The complaint is filed for returning fixed deposits of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 3,55,419. She has produced the fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 1 lakh for the period 1.9.2004 to 1.9.2006. Exbt.A3, the passbook, pertaining to Account No. 431 is disputed as the entries are irregular and is not in order. Exbt.A3 is not a genuine one and alleged that it was prepared by the complainant for the convenience to file the complaint. The appellants had not accepted any deposit for Rs. 3,55,419 from the complainant’s husband. It is in evidence that DW1 to DW3 were examined on behalf of the appellant/opposite party. DW1 is having a shop near the 1st opposite party institution. It is also admitted that there had a chaos in 2006 in the financial institution. The Counsel pointed out that the complainant had not pleaded in the complaint that he is in possession of the passbook in respect of the alleged fixed deposit. He had not produced any fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 3,55,419.45 from April 2006, except the said passbook. The complainant h