IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 16th day of June, 2012
Filed on 23.01.2012
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.22/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.A.R. Sheeja, W/o Anilkumar 1. DLS Jyothis Project, Administrative
Adithya, Mullackal Office, Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Alappuzha Eranakulam, Pin – 682 035 Represented by its Managing Partner
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon)
2. The Branch Manager, DLS Jyothis Project, Gangothri Building, Kaichoondy Junction, Avalookkunnu P.O., Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Smt. A.R.Sheeja has filed this complaint on 23.01.2012 before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations are as follows: As per the personal instigation of the opposite party, she had deposited a total sum of Rs.2,81,000/- before the firm of the opposite parties on 28.4.2007 and 17.5.2007. At the time of accepting the amount from him, the opposite parties had issued a Beneficiary Certificate in the name of DLS Jyothis Project and that the project offered and agreed that the amount entrusted by them will fetch a minimum of twice the entrusted amount and that the beneficiary will receive the entrusted amount and will pay back after maturity. As per offer, she is entitled to get double of amount on the expiry date. The opposite parties promised that the deposited amount will be returned as and when it was demanded by her. Since there was delay to get the amount, she contacted the opposite parties several times. But the opposite parties have not turned up. Hence this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. Opposite party’s counsel filed version. In the version stated that the opposite parties did not given any assurance to return double the entrusted amount within 100 weeks and further contended that the complainant had not deposited, but only entrusted in the DLS Jyothis Project of the opposite parties’ firm for supplied Govt. Lottery tickets and magazines and further contended that complaint is barred by limitation, and further submitted that opposite parties’ firm did not accept any deposit from anybody including complainant.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, this Forum has raised the following issues for a fair adjudication:-
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the entire amount with interest from the opposite parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence in support of her case. Document – Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. Exts.A1 to A8 are the original Beneficiary Certificates. The certificates show that a sum of Rs.2,81,000/- from the complainant was accepted by the opposite parties. The certificate was signed by the Managing Partner and Officer Customer Care. The opposite parties are acknowledged the receipt of the said amounts. The certificates show that the details of the opposite parties’ firm. Ext.A9 is the notice shows that assurance of doubled amount. Ext.A10 is the Power of Attorney.
5. We have examined the whole matters involved in this case in detail and perused the documents given by the complainant in evidence and heard the case.
6. On the basis of assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant had entrusted the amount of Rs.2,81,000/- in the name of the complainant on 28.4.2007 and 17.5.2007. At the time of accepting the amount, the opposite parties had issued Beneficiary Certificates for the said amount to the complainant (Ext.A1 to A8). On verification of the said certificate, it can be seen that the date of entrusting the amount, name of the beneficiary, amount entrusted, date of expiry date and pas code etc. The Certificates were signed by the Managing partner and Officer Customer Care of the said firm. The certificates further show the details of the said firm at Eranakulam. After the maturity of the said amount as per their assurance, the complainant requested the opposite parties to return the amount. At the time of receiving the amount, the Project offered and agreed that the amount entrusted by the complainant will fetch a minimum of twice the entrusted amount. On verification, it can be seen that the opposite parties had not returned the said amount to the complainant in time. The entrusted amount comes only in the nature of deposited amount. The opposite parties are fully entitled to return back the amount with interest to the complainant and that the complainant has every right to get back the amount with interest. The whole actions of the opposite parties shows their irresponsible nature, fraudulent steps, cheating nature and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties cannot escape from the liability by raising unnecessary contentions to the complainant. The action of the opposite parties shows that their malafide intention to defeat the interest of the complainant by way of purposeful refusal to repayment of amounts with interest in time. If the opposite parties are facing any legal action from the side of the Police regarding the working of the firm, the complainant is not at all liable for that. The opposite parties have no right to retain the amounts entrusted by the complainants without repayment. The opposite parties have purposefully evaded from the liability of repayment. The whole action taken by the opposite parties in this financial case shows their illegal attitude and arbitrary nature. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the strong view that the allegations raised by the complainants against the opposite parties are highly genuine. The whole facts of this case, further shows that the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice of the opposite party by way of purposeful denial to repay the deposited amount to the complainant with interest in time and evaded from the assurance given by them to the complainant at the time of accepting the said amounts by the opposite parties’ firm. Since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating on the side of the opposite parties, they are fully liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence, after considering the whole facts of this case, we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the accepted amounts of Rs.2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and eighty one thousand only) to the complainant with 24% interest from the date of entrusting the amounts with opposite parties ie. 28.4.2007 and 17.5.2007 onwards till the repayment of the entire amount, and pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation for her mental agony, pain, sufferings, harassment, loss, inconvenience and physical strain due to grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to repay the amount with interest to the complainant in time and evaded from the assurance given by them to the complainant at the time of accepting the amounts from them. We further ordered that the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant as the costs of this proceedings. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties in case any default to pay the amount as per this order. We direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Exts.A1 to A8 - Original Beneficiary Certificates (8 Nos.)
Ext.A9 - Notice
Ext.A10 - Power of Attorney
Evidence of the opposite parties: - Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
