S. Robert vs SECRETARY, VILAVANCODE PRIMARY AGRI. CO-OP. BANK LTD.

THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His case is that forced by the 1st opposite party Secretary of the Vilavancode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, and recommended by the 2nd opposite party Special Officer of the Bank, he deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in their Bank under re-investment scheme for six years in the name of his minor daughter on 18.10.1988. THE maturity date was 18.10.1994. On reaching the maturity date, he was entitled to Rs. 7,315/- but he was given only a sum of Rs. 6,125/- on 7.11.1994, when he asked for the balance amount of Rs. 1,190/- it was refused. This caused him mental agony. On these grounds he filed the complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,190/- with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from 7.11.1994 and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.000/-.

THE opposite parties contended that the amount was deposited by the complainant only under Fixed Deposit for 72 months and not under reinvestment scheme, he had taken a loan of Rs. 2,995/- on 23.12.1991 and he received the balance amount of Rs. 6,125/- on 7.11.1994, it is not correct to say that the complainant was further entitled to Rs. 1,190/- therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the case of the complainant is not true and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint with a cost of Rs. l.000/-.

Now in the appeal we find no merit. The District Forum has elaborately considered the documentary evidence adduced in the case. Ex. A-l has been filed as the Fixed Re-investment Deposit Account Opening Form by the complainant in respect of which PW 1 the Ex. Special Officer of the Bank was examined. He has admitted in cross examination that Ex. A-l is the original form and it should have been only with the Bank and not with the complainant. As stated by the District Forum, this raises grave doubt that the investment was made under the re-investment scheme. The District Forum considered Ex. Bl Receipt dated 18.10.1988; Ex. B 2 Fixed Deposit Register page No. 21; Ex. B 3 Ledger page No. 1; Ex. B-4 Subsidiary Cash Book Page No. 77; Ex. B-5 Day Book Page No. 39; and found from all these that the amount was deposited as a Fixed Deposit only and not under Re-investment scheme. We find absolutely no reason to doubt the genuineness or correctness of the said documents filed by the opposite parties. Rightly therefore, the District Forum has rejected the case of the complaint and accepted the case of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint was a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus we find no merit in the appeal.

APPEAL is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. APPEAL dismissed.