KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 3/2011

JUDGMENT DATED 27.1.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     :  JUDICIAL  MEMBER             

APPELLANTS

1.      M/s.  LIS (Regd.)- Administrative Office,

Palackal Court, M G Road, Ernakulam-35.

2.       P.V. Chacko, Managing Trustee, LIS(Regd.)

Palackal Court,

M G Road, Ernakulam-35.

               ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. O.V. Maniprasad & V.S. Bimal)                                

                                         Vs

RESPONDENT

         Lalichan P.M. Mathew, Parassery 34/1408,

         EARA 67,Edappally P.O.,

          Ernakulam – 682 024

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

          The appellants are the opposite parties who have challenged the order of the Forum in C.C. 206/2010 in the file of CDRF Ernakulam.  They are under order to pay a sum of Rs. 37,500/- to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from 9.12.2005 till payment. 

          The case of the complainant is that he had deposited  Rs. 37,500/- with the opposite parties on the  assurance from the second opposite party that he would get double the  amount after 1 ½  years.  On several occasions the complainant requested the money from the second opposite party.  But he did not turn up.  On 8.11.2009, the complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite parties, but they did not respond.  Hence he filed complaint before the Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest and compensation.

          The opposite parties filed version and denied the alleged assurance to pay back double the amount deposited after 1 ½ to the complainant.  According to them the amount so received from the complainant was for availing service rendered by the first opposite party for purchasing Lottery tickets and for issuing College Magazines to the members who joined in the scheme and on account of freezing the bank accounts of the opposite parties they could not continue the business. 

          The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant.  No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties.

          The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued for the position  that  the order of the Forum below is unsustainable on the ground that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to the effect that  the appellants/opposite parties have assured to pay back double the amount  deposited after 1 ½ years  and it is also submitted that out of Rs. 37,500/- which  was received  from the complainant Rs. 12,600/-  was used for purchasing lottery tickets.  It is also submitted that there was a case before the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the entire bank accounts of the opposite parties was directed to freeze.  Hence they could not continue the business.  Thus the Counsel for the appellants submitted that the contract between the complainant and the firm became frustrated and so no benefit can be claimed by the members.  He argued that  there were interim orders by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court directing the  appellant firm to return the amount after deducting the amount spent towards the purchase of lottery tickets and the issuance of  magazines. Thus he prayed for admitting the appeal.

          The case of the appellants is that the complainant has entrusted  the amounts to the first opposite party for availing service  rendered by the first opposite party ie  For purchasing lottery tickets and for issuing college magazines.   However the deposit of Rs. 37,500/- is admitted by the appellants.  The Forum below has ordered for  the refund of the said amount with interest at 9% per annum from 9.12.2005 till the date of payment.  Though the appellants would argue that the amounts entrusted by the respondent/complainant is not returnable with interest, we find that the opposite parties had not adduced any evidence to substantiate their case that the amount entrusted by them is not refundable with interest or that the same is entrusted only for purchasing lottery tickets and for issuing college magazines who joined in the scheme.  Though it is submitted that there were interim orders by the Karnataka High court, no such orders are seen produced by the appellants to substantiate the said contentions.  The complainant produced Exts. A1 to A3  to substantiate his case and the Forum below had passed  the order appreciating the evidence  adduced before it. 

           No evidence was adduced by the appellants/opposite parties.  to substantiate their case.   There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Forum below.  Hence we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          In the result this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

                   VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

                M.V. VISWANATHAN                    :    JUDICIAL MEMBER

 st