Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/449

J. Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ayswarya Finance Venkitangu - Opp.Party(s)

Josy Tharakan

11 May 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/449

J. Roy
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ayswarya Finance Venkitangu
Brahmadas.V.K
Sivadas.V.K
Dharmadas.V.K
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. J. Roy

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Ayswarya Finance Venkitangu 2. Brahmadas.V.K 3. Sivadas.V.K 4. Dharmadas.V.K

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Josy Tharakan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. E.P. Prince



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complaint is filed by the mother in favour of her minor son to get back the kuri amount. The case is as follows. The complainant joined a kuri in the name of her minor son as per statement No.104 having a sala of Rs.1,50,000/- in the respondent Company. The kuri was prized to the complainant on 9.7.02 but the amount was not paid. The respondents told that due to some financial difficulties, they need some more time to release the amount. It was told that the amount was treated as a deposit amount and will be returned with 14% interest after the termination. But the amount was not refunded so far. Hence the complaint. 
 
            2. The respondents-1, 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter is as follows. The petition is time barred and hence it is not maintainable. The kuri amount belongs to the minor and so it can be withdrawn only for the benefit of the minor child through due process of law. That is not done. So even if there is any amount due the respondents cannot give the amount in law to the petitioner. The minor has to wait until he attains the age of majority to rectify the acts of the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.
           
            3. The points for consideration are:-
 
(1)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount claimed?
(2)   Other reliefs and costs.
 
            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 only.
 
            5. Points-1 & 2: The complaint is filed by the mother as guardian of the minor petitioner for realizing the kuri amount remitted in the respondent Company. The complainant has joined a kuri in the name of her minor son having a sala of Rs.1,50,000/- as statement No.104 and that kuri was prized to the complainant on 9.7.02. But the amount was not returned and the complainant filed a complaint No.OP.1578/04 before the Forum for realization of this amount and also for another amount deposited. That complaint was dismissed by stating “two in one”. So this complaint is filed only to get back the remitted amount in kuri. The complainant has joined in the kuri in the name of her minor son and she remitted amount towards entire instalments and the kuri was terminated on 9.3.04. But the amount was not returned. The non-payment of the amount is a deficiency in service on the part of respondents. 
 
            6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 9.8.02 till realization with costs Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within two months. 
           
 
 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 11th day of May 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S