By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- in his own name Rs.5,000/- in the name of his wife Rs.5,000/- in the name of his daughter, 5,000/- in the name of his son in the project of Opposite Parties. The receipts were issued to the Complainant towards the deposited sum. The receipt No.58070 was deposited on 14.06.2007 and receipt No.64798 was dated 19.6.2007 and on 19.6.2007 amount deposited was given a receipt No.64797 in total Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the Complainant in the project of the Opposite Party. The offer of the Opposite Party was that the deposited sum would be doubled within 100 weeks through lottery commission. On enquiry on 30.6.2010 towards the refund of the deposit sum. The Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the amount cannot refunded. The Complainant made wide and attractive offers to canvas deposit. In anticipation of doubling the sum as assured the Complainant entrusted the money to the Opposite Party. The non refund of the deposited sum with interest is a deficiency in service. The Complainant had extensive mental pain and agony in the deficit service of the Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party refund the Complainant Rs.75,000/- with an interest at the rate of 18% till the date of payment.
2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The Complainant itself is barred by limitation the transaction took place on 14.06.2007. The Opposite Party accepted Rs.25,000/- from the Complainant in the name of his wife, son and daughter for the investment of purchasing lottery tickets and magazines. The Opposite Party purchased lottery tickets worth of Rs.1,200/- and Complainant was also issued magazines from time and again. There was no offer from the Opposite Party that the amount deposited would be doubled within short period of 100 weeks. The admission of the Complainant to the scheme was only after realizing the rules and regulations of the scheme. The reimbursement of the amount entrusted is only by the commission of lottery prizes. When the scheme was running smoothly interference of Police in running the concern lead to the stoppage of the project. The relief sought by the Complainant is unsustainable and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
3. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
4. Point No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant, Exts.A1 to A5 series are the documents produced. The Opposite Parties have not tendered any oral evidence in this case. The amount deposited by the Complainant in the project of the Opposite Party is admittedly Rs.25,000/-. Ext.A5 series is the photocopy of the advertisement and which details how the doubling of the deposited sum is effected. On perusal of the documents it is seen that the Opposite Party offered the subscribers that the amount entrusted or deposited would be doubled. The subscribers were admitted to the scheme not under any condition that in case of any failure in receiving a prize the amount entrusted would be lost. The condition of the Opposite Party is that the entrusted amount of the Complainant was used for the purchase of lottery tickets and it is also contented by the Opposite Parties that several units of lotteries were purchased by the Opposite Party. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party it is also admitted that in the account of the Complainant as a commission from the prize of lottery tickets only Rs.25/- is deposited. The contention of the Opposite Party that the refund of the amount deposited is not an offer under this scheme cannot be considered. Dragging the subscribers to a scheme with glittering offers and blatant denial of refund of the amount is nothing but deficiency in service and the points are found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to refund the deposited sum with an interest at the rate of 12% to the depositors. The Complainant is also to be given Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th November 2010.
Date of filing: 24.07.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Suresh. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Photo copy of Receipt No.58070.
A2. Photo copy of Receipt No.64798.
A3. Photo copy of Receipt No.64796.
A4. Photo copy of Receipt No.64797.
A5. Photo copy of Advertisement.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
