- (1.) THE 1st opposite party aggrieved by the order of the lower Forum has come to this Appellate Commission for redressal.
(2.) THE 1st respondent as complainant has approached the District Forum for redressal, against the appellant and the 2nd opposite party as if there was deficiency in service since the appellant/1st respondent failed to return the deposit amount with interest thereon as agreed, on maturity.
(3.) THE 1st respondent while sought for redressal before the District Forum as complainant, alleged in his petition that on 10.8.2001 he had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 with the appellant/1st opposite party, who agreed to pay interest after 3 years on maturity on 10.8.2004, but despite the maturity period is over and demand was made by issuing notice, the 1st opposite party / appellant failed to pay the amount to the petitioner which amount to deficiency in service and in this view, the opposite parties should be directed to return the amount as claimed in the petition. The appellant/Special Officer denying the allegations in the complaint contended that the 1st respondent/complainant has not deposited the amount in the society, that there was no deficiency of service as alleged and that the so -called non -refund of the fixed deposit amount will not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and in view of the further fact the Forum has no jurisdiction to enquire the complainant, prayed for dismissal.;