IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 150/08 Between: Joseph D’cruz, Maria Gardens, Mannadisala P.O., Vechoochira – 686 511. .... Complainant. And: - Sri. Kuriachen Chacko,
Managing Trustee, Liss (Registered) Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. - Prof. Dr. M.V. Pily,
Partner, Lizz (Registered), Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. 3. Prof. V.J. Pappu, Partner, Lizz (Registered), Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. (4) Branch Manager, Lizz (Registered), PKR Centre, Opp. KSRTC, Pathanamthitta .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.625/- during December, 2004 to the opposite parties and become a member of the Deepastambham Scheme introduced by the opposite parties. As per the advertisement, the members of Deepastambham scheme are assured that the opposite parties will take a lottery ticket worth Rs.10/- for every week and members are provided with copies of Thrimassikom publication and also assured that the prize of the lottery tickets, if any, and an amount equivalent to the total amount paid by the member will be returned within one year. Accordingly, the complainant received an amount of Rs.1,655/- including the prize of the lottery tickets during October 2005. The benefit received by the complainant is about 265% of his remittance. Thereafter, on 19.10.2005, he paid Rs.1,250/- to the opposite parties and purchased 2 units and again become a member of the said scheme. He got the publication for 3 months and thereafter he had not received the publication. So he enquired about the non-receipt of the publication. He was informed that the company is facing some legal problems and everything will be O.K. within a short period and the offers made will be provided without any delay. He is also informed that if he wants money immediately, he will be given 75% of the amount given by him. On 16.11.2006, the complainant sent a letter to the first opposite party demanding his money. The first opposite party sent a reply intimating him that the complainant’s money will be returned shortly. But the complainant was not given any amount by the opposite parties so far. According to the complainant, if the offers of the scheme was materialised, he would have received Rs.62,000/- and 108 issues of the publication by 3 years. All the partners of the company are distinguished personalities and the complainant paid the money on the reputation of the partners of the company. The complainant sent letters on 27.09.2008 to the all partners, but there is no reply or they have not returned his money. The above said acts of the opposite parties are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss of Rs.62,000/- and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the loss of Rs.62,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost. 3. For the opposite parties, the first opposite party filed a version with the following contentions: The complaint is against the real facts and on the basis of hypothetical inference. The second and third opposite parties are not the partners of the company and they were arrayed without bonafides and due to ignorance. The complainant’s claim that the amount deposited by him will increase to Rs.62,000/- is only a dream of the complainant. At the first instance, he received 265% of his investment, it cannot be continued and the complainant’s allegation that they are bound to maintain the same increase is not true and it is only a mis-understanding or greed. The opposite parties are doing only an agency work for the members’ benefits by purchasing lottery tickets and supplying publications and the profits in the said dealing were given to the members on the basis of the members’ seniority. 4. While the schemes of the opposite parties are going on smoothly, some financial institutions influenced the police against them. As a result, some legal issues are raised against them and they are compelled to stop their business for time being and their bank accounts were freezed by the police. Because of the above incidents, they are restrained to run their business promptly. Because of this, they are not able to provide with the offers to the members. But they are ready to do the same after the present issues are over and at that time, the complainant’s grievances will be settled. With the above statements, the opposite parties undertake to settle the complainant’s genuine rights as and when the present problems are over. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed as prayed for? 6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B5. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 7. The Point: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the brochure issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the receipt for payment of Rs.1,250/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of letter-dated 16.11.2006 issued by the complainant in the name of the first opposite party. Ext.A4 is the reply letter dated 04.12.2006 of the first opposite party. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter-dated 27.09.20088 sent by the complainant to opposite parties and its partners. Ext.A6 is the intimation dated 13.10.2005 of the opposite parties in the name of the complainant regarding the release of the benefits due to the complainant in his first membership. PW1 was cross-examined by the authorised representative of the opposite parties. 8. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contentions, the authorised representative of the opposite parties filed a proof affidavit along with 5 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.B1 is the copy of the application form dated 19.10.2005 submitted by the complainant for enrolling as a member of Deepasthambham Project of the opposite parties. Ext.B2 is the copy of the rules of the Deepasthambham Project. Ext.B3 is the copy of the Order dated 11.08.2006 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam in CMP No.4483/06 in Crime No.672/06 of Central Police Station. Ext.B4 is the copy of the Order dated 21.01.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.1942/2007 C/W CR.P. 828/2007, CRL.P.1044/2007 & CRL.P.1600/2007. Ext.B5 is the copy of Judgment dated 16.07.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition Nos.1942, 1600, 1044 & 828 of 2007. DW1 was cross-examined by the complainant. 9. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the materials on record. It is revealed that there is no dispute regarding the complainant’s payment to the opposite parties. The only dispute is that the complainant was not given the offers assured by the opposite parties in the Deepasthambham Project. The opposite parties have no case that they have given the offers. Their argument is that the claim raised by the complainant is without any basis and are outside the scope of their assurance and offers. But they undertake that they are prepared to given the genuine and legitimate offers to the complainant after settling the legal issues facing by them. However, the complainant is entitled to get the amount deposited along with benefits offered by the opposite parties. But we cannot accept the opposite parties undertaking that they are prepared to return the genuine claim of the complainant after solving their problems. The complainant is not responsible for their problems. In the circumstances, we fined that the complainant is entitled to get the amount given by the complainant in the Deepasthambham Project of the opposite parties. But in the absence of any evidence from the side of the complainant to show that the amount entitled to him is more than the amount paid by him. So we direct the opposite parties to return the amount paid by the complainant with its interest and cost and this complaint is allowed to that extent. 10. In the result, this complaint is allowed partly, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,250/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred and fifty only), the amount paid by the complainant in the Deepasthambham Project vide Ext.A2 receipt, to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the interest at the rate of 12% per annum will follow for the whole amount from today till the whole realisation. Declared in the Open Forum on this 23rd day of February, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Joseph D’cruz. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Brochure issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A2 : Receipt for payment of Rs.1,250/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A3 : Copy of letter dated 16.11.2006 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. A4 : Reply letter dated 04.12.2006 of the first opposite party. A5 : Copy of letter dated 27.09.20088 sent by the complainant to opposite parties. A6 : Notice dated13.10.2005 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Kuriachan Chacko. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of the application form dated 19.10.2005 submitted by the complainant for enrolling as a member of Deepasthambham Project of the opposite parties. B2 : Copy of the rules of the Deepasthambham Project. B3 : Copy of the Order dated 11.08.2006 of the Hon’ble Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam in CMP No.4483/06 in Crime No.672/06 of Central Police Station. B4 : Copy of the Order dated 21.01.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.1942/2007 C/W CR.P. 828/2007, CRL.P.1044/2007 & CRL.P.1600/2007. B5 : Copy of Judgment dated 16.07.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition Nos.1942, 1600, 1044 & 828 of 2007. ` (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) Joseph D’cruz, Maria Gardens, Mannadisala P.O., Vechoochira – 686 511. (2) Sri. Kuriachen Chacko, Managing Trustee, Liss (Registered) Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. (3) Prof. Dr. M.V. Pily, Partner, Lizz (Registered), Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. (4) Prof. V.J. Pappu, Partner, Lizz (Registered), Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 035. (5) Branch Manager, Lizz (Registered), PKR Centre, Opp. KSRTC, Pathanamthitta (6) The stock file. | 
