Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/77

P.V. Davis - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kerala Sambavar Society Poyya - Opp.Party(s)

Ruby Jose

30 Aug 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/77

P.V. Davis
Jinso Minor
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Kerala Sambavar Society Poyya
P.D. Raju
P.N. Kunjikuttan
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. P.V. Davis 2. Jinso Minor

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Kerala Sambavar Society Poyya 2. P.D. Raju 3. P.N. Kunjikuttan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Ruby Jose

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Messers Sheejo Chacko and Associates



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.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioners were the subscribers of the ’Laghu Sambatya Padhati’ conducted by the respondents. Second petitioner is a minor represented b y first petitioner. As per pass book No.29, the 1stpetitioner had remitted Rs.50/- each for 35 months and as per pass book No.30, the 2nd petitioner remitted Rs.50/- each for 35 months and the scheme was terminated on 2000 November. The 1st petitioner had also remitted Rs.100/- each for 52 weeks and this scheme was launched on 3/10/99 and terminated on 2000 October. As per this scheme he had further paid Rs.100/- each for 52 weeks and this scheme started on 17/1/99 and terminated on 2000 January. As per the monthly savings scheme every subscriber is entitled for Rs.2,200/- after within 30 days of 35th instalment. But this amount is not received by the petitioners. Even after the termination of the schemes no amount was returned. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence this complaint. 2. Counsel for respondents submitted no instruction from respondents and called absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case petitioners have filed affidavit and four documents, which are marked as Exhibits P1 to P4. 4. According to the complainants, for first complainant is entitled for Rs.21,898/- and the second complainant is entitled for Rs.3,542/-. They also claim cost to the litigation. 5. There is no contrary evidence. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two thousand and two hundred only) to the 1st petitioner as per Ext.P1, Rs.5,720/- (Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) as per Ext. P2 and Rs.5,720/- (Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) as per Ext. P4. Respondents are also directed to return Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two thousand and two hundred only) to the 1st petitioner on behalf of the minor petitioner and further directed to provide Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of August 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.