Kerala

Wayanad

CC/95/2012

Premjith P, Gurudharmam House,Madiyurkuni, Kalpetta . - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. Joy John, Managing Partner, Devdhan Lottery Services, Jyothis Project, DLS NO.40/8942 C, 2nd Floo - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2012

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/95/2012
 
1. Premjith P, Gurudharmam House,Madiyurkuni, Kalpetta .
Kalpetta.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. K. Joy John, Managing Partner, Devdhan Lottery Services, Jyothis Project, DLS NO.40/8942 C, 2nd Floor, CRH complex,
MG road,
Ernakulam.
Kerala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The Complaint filed against the opposite party not refunding the deposited amount along with assured profits.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- in the project run by the opposite party on 06.06.2007. The assurance of the opposite party was that the amount deposited in the scheme run by them would be doubled within two years period. On 29.04.2009 the complainant approached the opposite party to get the amount refunded with the assured profits. The opposite party at that time informed the complainant that the amount deposited already doubled refunding requires some procedures for which further time is necessary.

3. On 28.03.2011 and 01.07.2011 the complainant approached the opposite party again for the refund of the deposited amount at that time they informed the complainant that they are not in a position to refund the amount. The non refund of the deposited amount with the assured profits are nothing but deficiency in service. The promise of the opposite party if became true the complainant would have got Rs.18,600/-. Along with cost and compensation in total the complainant is entitled to get Rs.33,600/- and also liable to get the interest for the amount deposited from the date of filing this complaint till the realization of the amount.


 

3. The Opposite party is set exparte.

4. The Points that are to be decided:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant. Exts.A1 and A2 are the documents produced. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued to the complainant by opposite party. The complainant joined in the scheme on 06.06.2007. The date of expiry as per this receipt was on 29.04.2009. The complainant affirmed that for the return of the amount deposited he approached the opposite party in several times afterwards. Ext.A2 is the copy of the brochure it also states that the amount deposited in the scheme would be doubled.

6. In the absence of any adverse inferences it is to be relied that the amount deposited in the scheme run by the opposite party is not refunded to the complainant along with the profits assured it is nothing but deficiency in service.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of joining scheme till the realization of the amount. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.


 

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 18th June 2012.

Date of Filing:29.03.2012.

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran]
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.