KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 192/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:04..05..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Jyothis Project, (Previously LIS) DLS, CRH Complex, 2nd Floor, : APPELLANT 40/8942C, M.G.Road, Ernakulam-35. (By Adv:M/s O.V.Maniprasad & V.S.Bimal) Vs. Jayakrishnan Nair, Bhagirathy, Aiyroor.P.O, : RESPONDENT Kurumassery, Ernakulam-683 579. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:30/01/2010 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC:624/09. Appellant was the opposite party and respondent was the complainant in the said consumer complaint No:624/09 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not repaying the maturity amount due to the complainant and his wife Pushpalatha who had invested an amount of Rs.5,000/- each with the opposite party on 4/3/2006 and 11/03/2006 respectively. 2. Notice in the said complaint was served on the opposite party; but the opposite parties remained absent and so the Forum passed the impugned exparte order. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal and requested for remanding the matter to the Forum below for affording an opportunity to the appellant for filing written version and adducing evidence. 4. The case of the appellant is that they could not present their case before the Forum below as there occurred an inadvertent mistake in noting the posting date of the complaint. There is only a vague statement that the posting date was mistakenly noted as 27/02/2010 instead of the correct date of 27/01/2010. But, it is not stated who noted the posting date as 27/02/2010. No affidavit is seen filed by the person who mistakenly noted the posting date as 27/02/2010. There is not even a whisper about the name of the person who mistakenly noted the posting date as 27/2/2010 instead of 27/1/2010. The facts and circumstances of the case would give an indication that the appellant/opposite party permitted the Forum below to pass an exparte order and thereafter filed the present appeal to get the matter prolonged somehow or other. The case of the appellant/opposite party that the posting date was mistakenly noted as 27/2/2010 instead of 27/1/2010 cannot be believed or accepted without cogent evidence. 5. The fact that the respondent/complainant and his wife Pushpalatha invested a sum of Rs.5000/- each in the said scheme introduced by the appellant/opposite party is not disputed. The documentary evidence available on record would also make it clear that as per A14 brochure the appellant/opposite party was bound to give double the amount after 50 weeks from the date of deposit. Thus, the respondent/complainant and his wife Pushpalatha were entitled to get Rs.10,000/- each under the said scheme. But the appellant/opposite party failed to pay the said maturity amount even after repeated requests. Thus, on merits also the claim of the complainant for getting the amount in his favour and infavour of his wife Pushpalatha is to be treated as a reasonable and tenable claim. The Forum below is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order directing the opposite party (appellant) to pay Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a cost of Rs.500/- each to the complainant and his wife. It is also to be noted that the claim for compensation has been disallowed by the Forum below by taking into consideration the interest awarded on the said amount. Thus, in all respects the present appeal deserves dismissal at the admission stage itself. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
