1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Narayana Pillai has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the contentions of the complaint are as follows: - The complainant had paid Rs. 36,000/- to the opposite parties as an investment returnable in three years. The first installment of interest i.e. Rs. 10,000/- was due and payable in June, 2007 and second installment in 2009. It is contended that Sri. Janardhana Karanavar was the canvassing agent and that the complainant had no knowledge about him and he has left the country soon after the canvassing. Ms. Meera Bai then a Manager of the State Bank of Travancore was another canvassing agent. The complainant knew her for sometime, and who had satisfactory credentials. It is further stated that at no stage it was mentioned this amount was a donation as stated in the receipt issued. Since the complainant has not obtained any relief from the opposite parties, he has filed the complaint to get back the amount, together with interest. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed version and documents. In the version, the 1st opposite party has stated that they have never informed the complainant that the deposited amount will be repaid. M/s. Arogravaram Medical Centre is a Charitable Institution and it serves the poor public and several patients get free medical treatment. Several concessions are also given to the patients. The said institution is not run for commercial purpose and it does not make profits. Donations are received for the maintenance of the institution and that the donors are entitled to get income tax relief. It is stated that the complainant voluntarily donated Rs. 36,000/- through Sri. Janardhana Karanavar and that the complainant knowing fully well that the said amount is not refundable and has given this donation and opposite party has never promised to pay any interest for the donation amount. It is further stated that the 2nd opposite party has no involvement in the donation given by the complainant. The version of the second opposite party has also stated that, she has no involvement in the matter and that she is not a canvasser as stated by the complainant, 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Compensation and costs. 4. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant, he has produced 2 documents marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the copy of the receipt No. 38148 dated 05-06-2006 for a sum of Rs. 36,000/- issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant. It shows that a sum of Rs. 36,000/- was received by the first opposite party by way of donation from the complainant. The donation was sponsored by Sri. Janardhana Karanavar. Ext. A2 is the leaf let attached with the application for investment. It shows that the details of donation and the benefits for the said donations. On the side of the opposite parties they have produced 4 documents marked as Exts. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is the application form for the donations and other conditions. Ext. B2 is the document containing the working of the institution. Ext. B3 is the proceedings of the commissioner of Income Tax, regarding the exemption of Income Tax for the donation. Ext. B4 is the gazette Notification dated 05-04-2004. On careful dealings of the documents given in evidence, it can be seen that the complainant had given the amount to the first opposite party, which is a Charitable Institution by way of donation. Ext. A1 clearly shows that the 1st opposite party has received the said amount by way of donation. In the receipt, it can be seen that the said donation was canvassed by one Janardhana Karanavar. The complainant had not made the said party, as opposite party in the complaint. Instead of that, he had included one Meera Bai as 2nd opposite party, who have no connection with the said donation effected by the complainant. On verification of the documents produced by both parties in evidence and after a detailed hearing, we are of the view that the disputed amount of Rs. 36,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand only) will amount to a donation voluntarily given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to compel the 1st opposite party to return the same with interest. The complainant cannot be treated as a consumer and the contentions raised by the complainant lacks bonafides and it cannot be accepted as a valid ground for refund of the amount. Since the complaint has no merit and is not maintainable we are of the view that it is to be dismissed. The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 11th day of August, 2008. Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant:- Ext. A1 05-06-2006 Photocopy of receipt No. 38148 Ext. A2 - Photocopy of leaf let attached with the application for investment. Evidence of the Opposite parties:- Ext. B1 - Application form for the donation Ext. B2 - Document containing the working of the institution Ext. B3 - Photocopy of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Ext. B4 05-04-2004 Photocopy of Gazette Notification // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
