By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complaint is filed to get back the amount deposited with the respondent firm with interest. The case is that the complainant deposited Rs.35,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- under the ‘Deepasthambham’ project of the respondents vide receipt No.334414 and 33394. It was assured that the amounts would be doubled within one year and it will be returned as and when demanded. No due dates or maturity dates were given. Having heard that the respondents cheated other depositors the complainant requested to return the deposited amount with interest. The respondents informed to refund the amount later. But the amounts were not refunded so far. Hence
the complaint.
2. The respondent filed a counter to the effect that the total amount of Rs.1,35,000/- of the complainant was not deposited but only entrusted with the respondent firm. There was no oral or any sort of agreement to pay interest on the amount entrusted. The amount was entrusted with the respondent firm for supplying lottery tickets and magazines. The agreement between respondent firm and the complainant was to purchase lottery tickets and college magazines over a certain period of time on behalf of him with the money entrusted with the respondent firm. Out of Rs.1,35,000/- received the respondent firm have purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.75,600/- and issued magazines due. They have collected and paid a sum of Rs.13,960/- being prize bagged by the complainant. The respondent firm has not committed any maturity period or any fixed time to give additional benefit and it is incorrect to say that the respondent firm promised that the complainant will get double the amount within one year. On 10.5.2006 the police raided the respondents’ office and directed to stop the business activity. On the basis of unsustainable allegation and registered a criminal case and the Hon. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed to freeze the entire bank accounts of the respondent firm. Thus the activity of purchasing lottery tickets and magazines were stopped and the matter is under consideration of C.J.M. Court, Ernakulam. The member is not entitled to get the promises benefits at any time he chooses. He is entitled to get the benefits only in accordance with the contract under which he entrusted the amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get back the Exts. P1 and P2
amount with interest?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that he deposited Rs.1,35,000/- with the respondent firm under their Deepasthambham project. It has been believed that the amount will get doubled within one year and will be refunded when requested. The complainant requested the amount on February 2007. But the amount has not been refunded so far. The counter is that the amount is not deposited but it is entrusted with the respondent firm and there was no oral or any agreement to pay interest on the amount entrusted. The amount was entrusted with the respondent firm for supplying lottery tickets and magazines. It was agreed to purchase lottery tickets and college magazines over a certain period of time on behalf of the complainant with the money entrusted by him. The respondents have purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.75,600/- and collected Rs.13,960/- being the prize bagged by the complainant. The respondent firm did not make any promise to the effect that the amount would double within one year. As the entire book accounts have been freezed as per the direction from the Judicial Court the activity of purchasing the lottery tickets were stopped. Exts. P1 and P2 are the receipts issued by the respondents which reveals that they received Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant. The respondents’ argument is that the money is not a deposit but it is entrusted with them to purchase lottery tickets in favour of the complainant. However they did not produce the agreement with the complainant to this effect. If the money entrusted is to purchase lottery tickets there is no need to entrust the money with the respondents but to purchase the lottery tickets by the complainant himself. The respondents have stated that they have purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.75,600/- in favour of the complainant from the money entrusted with them. But no evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim and also to show the prizes bagged from these tickets. While cross examining the PW1 has stated that he has joined in the scheme seeing the advertisements in the newspapers. There were vide spread advertisements through the medias about the Deepasthambham project and large number of peoples were attracted by this advertisement and invested money with the respondents hopping to get benefits. But most of them lost their money. Thus the respondents collected money from the public and utilized it for their benefits. In this case the respondents could not prove that the money received was not a deposit and there was no agreement to refund it when demanded. So they are liable to return the amount with interest.
6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the complainant Exts. P1 and P2 amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 8.6.2005 till realization with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of July 2011.
