Kerala

Palakkad

CC/105/2013

Sankara Subramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joy John - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Venugopalan

30 Aug 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/105/2013
 
1. Sankara Subramanian
S/o.Late V.Mahadevan, Omkar 3/602, Pratheeksha Nagar, Industrial Estate (PO), Puduppariyaram Amsam (Old Address : 195A, Railway Quarters, Hemambika Nagar, Railway Colony, Akathethara Village)
Palakkad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Joy John
Managing Trustee, Jyothis Project, 39/76, D1, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Building, Makavi G Road, Cochin - 682 011
Ernakulam
Kerala
2. Jyothis Project
39/76, D1, 3rd floor, Bharathi Building, Makavi G Road, Cochin - 682 011
Ernakulam
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MRS. Seena.H PRESIDENT
 HONARABLE MRS. Bhanumathi.A.K Member
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha.G.Nair Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Palakkad, Kerala

Dated this the 30th day of August 2013


 

Present: Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G.Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 19/06/2013


 

CC / 105 / 2013


 

Sankara Subramanyan,

S/o. (L) V. Mahadevan,

Residing at Omkar 3/602,

Pratheeksha Nagar,

Industrial Estate P.O,

Puduppariyaram, Pin- 678 731. - Complainant

(By Adv. V.K. Venugopalan)

Vs

1. Jyothis Project,

39/76, D1, 3rd Floor,

Bharathi Building, Mahakaviji Road,

Cochin – 682 011, Represented by its

Managing Trustee Mr. Joy John.

(By Adv. Rajesh.M)


 

2. Jyothis Project, 39/86,

B1, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Building,

Mahakaviji Road, Cochin – 682 011. - Opposite parties


 

O R D E R S

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT


 

Complaint based on the offers made by the opposite parties through the agents joined “Jyothis project” where in an amount of Rs. 12,500/- was deposited on 1/5/2005. But the opposite parties had not given certificate for that amount. After filing complaint before the Hon'ble Chief Minister the opposite parties had given the certificate for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- only on 7/5/2007. It was agreed to return the amount in double after the maturity period. After 30/3/2007 the complainant had demanded the amount from the opposite parties several times. Then the opposite parties informed that the amount of complainant was included in Price Reimbursement and compensation list and there was no doubt to refund the amount. On 15/12/2010 the office of the opposite parties at Palakkad informed that there was no limitation to refund the amount and they are ready to pay the amount as earlier. But the opposite parties failed to return the assured amount. Then the complainant issued a lawyer notice dated 20/12/2012 to opposite parties. The 1st opposite party has received the notice on 27/12/2012. But they had not sent any reply. The non compliance of the terms and conditions of the project and failure to return the amount in clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 31,500/- as the assured amount with 18% interest and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

Though opposite parties entered appearance neither version nor affidavit was filed. The evidence adduced consists of the chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to Ext.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Matter heard.

Issues for consideration are;

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

  2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issues I & II

Complainant deposited Rs. 12,500/- in the LIS Deepasthambham Project on 1/2/2005 is evident from Ext.A1. As per Ext.A2 the complainant deposited Rs. 12,000/- on 7/5/2007 in the Jyothis Project and the date of expiry was 30/3/2009. In Ext.A3 the application document of Jyothis Project shown that the beneficiary will receive twice the entrusted amount within a maximum period of 100 weeks. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. Ext. A4 is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Hence the evidence of the complainant stands unchallenged.

In view of the above stated circumstances, we are of the view that complaint be allowed. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 24,000/- with 12% interest from 30/3/2009 to the date of order along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of August, 2013

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha. G. Nair

Member

Sd/- Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

Member


 

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 - Receipt (original) issued by the LIS Deepasthambham Project to the complainant dated 1/2/ 2005.

Ext.A2 - Beneficiary Certificate (original) issued by the opposite parties to complainant.

Ext.A3 - Application Document (original) of Jyothis Project.

Ext.A4 - Copy of Lawyer Notice with acknowledgement card and postal receipt sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 20/12/2012.


 

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MRS. Seena.H]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONARABLE MRS. Bhanumathi.A.K]
Member
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha.G.Nair]
Member

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.