By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
The Brief of the complaint:- The complainant's father T.V. Bagiradhan deposited Rs.25,000/- with the opposite parties on 21.05.2007 and the opposite party issued certificate to that effect. The above amount matured on 13.04.2009. At the time of joining this scheme the opposite parties assured that they will utilize this amount in lottery business and they will repay the amount with profit obtained from lottery business. But after maturity of the amount the complainant's
father approached the opposite party for several times. At last on 13.01.2011 he approached the opposite party and demanded for the money. But the opposite parties have not returned money as per their assurance. The above acts of the opposite parties is deficiency of service. Hence it is prayed for to direct the opposite parties to return Rs.25,000/- with 18% interest from 21.05.2007 and the profits received from the lottery tickets taken by the opposite parties and give Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
2. Notices served on opposite parties. Time is granted to opposite parties to file their version but they have not filed their version. Hence the opposite parties are declared exparte.
3. On perusing the complaint the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?.
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case complainant filed his chief affidavit and filed Ext.A1 ie copy of beneficiary Certificate. On perusing complaint, proof affidavit and Ext.A1 it is seen that one T.V. Bagiradhan has entrusted Rs.25,000/- with the opposite parties and the above amount expired on 13.04.2009 and the opposite parties issued beneficiary certificate to that effect. But the complainant has not produced any document to show that he is the legal heirer of Sri. T.V. Bagiradhan. Further he is not produced any certificate to show that the legal heirs of T.V. Bagiradhan entrusted the complainant to conduct the case on behalf of them. Without the above documents we cannot come to a conclusion whether there is any deficiency in service on the
part of opposite parties to the complainant. With the available documents we come to a conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. To the complainant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
5. Point No.2:- Point No.1 is decided against the complainant hence we are not discussing point No.2 in detail.
In the result the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh complaint by the legal heirs of Late Sri. T.V. Bagiradhan.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th November 2011.
Date of filing:03.10.2011.
