IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October, 2011
Filed on 28.12.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.375/2010
between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
1. Sri. Siji Daniel 1. Sri.Kurian Chacko, Managing
Puthuvappadickal Veedu Trustee,LISRegistered No.
Pilappuzha Muri 1741/2002, Deepasthambham
Haripad Village, Karthikappally Taluk Project, Administrative Office
Palackal Court, M.G. Road
2. Smt.Susan S. Daniel -do- Kochi, Eranakulam Dt.
3. Sri.P.G.Daniel,Power of Attorney 2. LIS Collection Centre
Holder of the 1st and 2nd complainants Kannamangalam Buildings
-do- -do- Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Haripad
(By Adv. K.T.Anishmon)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Siji Daniel and Smt. Susan Daniel have filed this complaint on 28.12.2010 before the Forum through their Power of Attorney Holder Sri. P.G.Daniel alleging deficiency on the side of the opposite parties. The allegations are as follows: As per the instigation of the opposite parties, they had deposited a total sum of Rs.30,000/- on 13.10/2005 by the first complainant and a sum of Rs.80,000/- by the 2nd complainant on 25.10.2005 before the firm of the opposite parties. At the time of accepting the amounts from them, the opposite parties informed them that deposit amount will be doubled within one year. Since there was delay in repayment of the said amounts from the opposite parties, they contacted the opposite parties on 9.1.2008 and 16.5.2008 at their office at Eranakulam. Since there was further delay, their Power of Attorney Holder contacted the opposite parties on 6.10.2008 and 10.12.2008. When contacted the opposite parties on 19.11.2009, they promised that the deposit amounts of the complainants will be returned at the earliest Since there was no positive steps on the side of the opposite parties, the complainants filed this complaint seeking relief.
2. Notices were issued to the parties. Opposite parties are entered appearance through counsel. But later, the counsel was absent and not filed any version. Several chances were given to the opposite parties for filing version. When the case was taken for evidence, the counsel and opposite parties were absent. Considering their absence, opposite parties were set exparte on 18.10.2011.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainants, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether the complainants are entitled to get back the entire amount with interest from the opposite parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainants have filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence in support of their case. Documents – Exts.A1 to A3 produced and marked it. Ext.A1 is the original deposit receipt dated 13.10.2005 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-issued by the opposite parties at the time of receiving the amount from the complainant, Sri. Siji Daniel. It shows that the Receipt was signed by the Managing Trustee, CEO and OCR. Ext.A2 is the original deposit certificate dated 25.10.2005 issued to the second complainant Smt.Susan Daniel at the time of accepting a sum of Rs.80,000/-. It was also signed by the Managing Trustee, CEO and OCR. Ext.A3 is the Power of Attorney Deed dt. 13.12.2010 of the complainants authorizing Sri.P.G. Daniel to represent before this firm and to follow up the case matter.
5. We have examined the matter involved in this case in detail and perused the documents given by the complainants in evidence and heard the case.
6. On the basis of assurance given by the opposite parties and their advertisement, the first complainant had entrusted an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the opposite parties and 2nnd complainant had entrusted a total sum of Rs.80,000/- with the opposite parties. At the time of accepting the amounts, the opposite party had issued original Certificates for the said amount to the complainants (Exts.A1and A2) after acknowledging the receipt of the said amounts. On verification of the said receipts, it shows the date of entrusting the amount, name of the party, amount entrusted, date of joining the scheme and password etc. The receipts were signed by the Managing Partner of the said firm CEO and OCR. The certificates further shows the details of the said firm at Eranakulam. After the maturity of the said amounts as per their agreement, the complainants requested the opposite parties to return the amount. It is alleged that, at the time of receiving the amounts, the Project offered and agreed by the opposite parties that the amount entrusted by the complainants will fetch a minimum of twice the entrusted amount. It is further alleged that the opposite parties had not returned the said amounts to the complainants in time. Exts.A1 and A2 documents shows that the amounts collected by the opposite parties from the complainants were their “Deepasthambham Project Memership”. On verification of the documents, we are of the view that the amounts comes only in the nature of ‘deposited amount’. The opposite parties are fully entitled to return back the amount with interest to the complainants and that the complainants have every right to get back the amounts with interest. In this respect it can be seen that the opposite parties had not filed any version, showing the reasons for neglecting to return back the amounts to the complainants, even though the counsel appeared before the Forum. The whole actions of the opposite party shows their irresponsible nature, fraudulent steps, cheating nature and unfair trade practice. After taking the entire matter of this case into account, we are of the further view that there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties, by way of purposeful denial to repay the amounts collected by them from the complainants. The opposite parties cannot escape from the liability and they are fully bound to return the amounts. The dealings of the opposite parties shows their malafide intention to defeat the interest of the complainants by way of purposeful refusal to repayment of amounts with interest in time. The opposite parties have no right to retain the amounts payable to the complainants without repayment. The whole action taken by the opposite parties in this financial case shows their illegal attitude and arbitrary nature. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the strong view that the allegations raised by the complainants against the opposite parties are highly genuine. The whole facts of this case, further shows that the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, cheating and unfair trade practice of the opposite party by way of purposeful denial to repay the deposited amount to the complainants with interest in time and evaded from the assurance given by them to the complainants at the time of receiving the said amount. Since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, and cheating on the side of the opposite parties, they are fully liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainants. All the issues are found in favour of the complainants. Hence, after considering the whole facts of this case, we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for.
In the result, for the ends of justice, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the collected amounts of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) and Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the 1st and 2nd complainants with 24% interest from the date of collecting the said amounts from the complainants as per the Receipts noted above, till the repayment of the entire amounts and pay a compensation amount Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the mental agony, pain, sufferings, inconvenience, harassment, loss and physical strain of the complainants due to grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, imperfection, cheating and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to repay the amounts with interest to the complainants in time and evaded from the assurance given by them to the complainants at the time of accepting the amounts from the complainants. We further direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainants as the costs of this proceedings. We further ordered that the complainants are free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties in case any default to pay the amount to them as per this order. We direct the opposite parties to pay the above said amounts to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Original deposit receipt dated 13.10.2005
Ext.A2 - Original deposit receipt dated 25.10.2005
Ext.A3 - Power of Attorney deed dated 13.12.2010
Evidence of the opposite parties: - Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite parties/ S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
