Kerala

Wayanad

CC/297/2013

Beena Jose,W/O Joseph.M.T,Melappilly house,Edapetty,Kalpetta North PO, - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIS Deepasthambam Porject and DLS Jyothis Project,represented by its Branch Manager,P.K Tower,Near N - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2014

ORDER

By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:-

The complaint is filed Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties to return the deposited amounts with offered benefits, compensation and cost of the proceedings.

 

2. Brief of the complaint:- The opposite parties have advertised through medias like television, newspaper, notices etc... that they are launching a new scheme of deposit in which the deposit amount will be doubled within a few period ie within two years, and also providing services of lottery tickets for the customers. Believing this the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- as per Receipt No.24804 on 05.05.2007. The amounts were deposited at Kalpetta and receipts were issued at Kalpetta. After the maturity the complainant approached the opposite parties demanding the return of deposited amount with promised benefits but opposite parties requested another 3 years to return the amounts with benefits as promised. The complainant had approached the opposite parties from March 2012 onwards for the payment of the amount due to the complainant. But the opposite parties extended the time for payment of the amount by saying lame excuses. Subsequently on 25.10.2012, 03.07.2013, 05.03.2013 and 12.11.2013 many other occasions also the complainant approached all opposite parties directly and by telephone for this purpose. But the opposite parties failed to repay the amount as promised and always extended the time for payment. According to the complainant he is entitled to get back the entire amount deposited with promised benefits. Now the opposite parties are evading the payments with an intention to exploit the complainants. This amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. So the complainant filed this complaint to get an Order directing the opposite parties to return a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest, cost and compensation.

 

3. Opposite parties appeared and filed version in short it is as follows:- According to opposite parties complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts and hence it is liable to be dismissed. Again opposite parties submitted that complainant is a customer of opposite party  No.2's business 'Jyothis Project' and Beneficiary Certificate issued by the opposite party No.2's firm is not made available to prove the claim of the complainant with Jyothis Project. There is an Arbitration Agreement is subsisting between complainant and opposite parties firm to resolve the dispute between them. The complainant had to avail the remedy of Arbitration instead of complaint, it is agreed between parties.

 

4. Petitioners/Opposite parties filed I.A No.49/2014 challenging the maintainability in limitation aspects of Consumer Protection Act. According to opposite party 6 years have passed after the cause of action. Hence this complaint is barred by limitation Under Section 24 A(1) of Consumer Protection Act of 1986. Respondent/Complainant filed counter in that I.A stating that the I.A is not maintainable either in facts or by law. Petitioners/opposite parties had collected huge amount by advancing attractive offers and promises and now they are trying to evade from responsibility of giving back the amount by filing petitions of experimental benefits. At the time of deposit opposite parties promised that the amount will be doubled within 2 years. After that the double amount will be returned with lottery prize and benefits. Thereafter opposite parties several occasions extended the time for repayment. On several occasions the complainant contacted the opposite parties directly and over phone to get back the deposited amount, all these occasions they have extended the time for payments. The cause of action is continuing even now also. On that ground itself there is no limitation in filing this complaint and I.A 49/2014 is dismissed. More over that in the version they are admitted that they are facing some crisis in their business such as Honorable additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam  vide CMP No.4483/2006, dated 11.08.2006 has directed to freeze the entire bank accounts of the defendant firm. Opposite parties firm is not in a position to give back the deposit money. According to Respondent/Complainant till today the date of completion of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties not arrived. The contractual obligation of the opposite parties is yet to be fulfilled. From the submissions of both the parties Forum found that there is sufficient reasons to condone the delay and hence the I.A 207/2014 is allowed and proceeded with the case. I.A 207/2014 is filed on 06.06.2014 and delay is condoned.

 

5. On considering the complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

 

6. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and produced document is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the Beneficiary Certificate No.24804 dated 05.05.2007 of Rs.5,000/-given by the opposite parties to the complainant. On going through the evidences the Forum found that complainant approached several occasions to get back the deposited amount with offered benefits of the scheme. But opposite party evading the payment after collecting huge amount from the depositors, the opposite party firm locked out their branch offices and absconded. There is no limitation in this case the complainant is entitled to get back the deposited amount. The complainant contacted the opposite parties several occasions, in the version it is clear that some police intervention and other crisis are troubling the opposite parties. On considering all these aspects Forum finds that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount with reasonable cost, compensation and interest. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

8. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount with reasonable interest, cost and compensation. The point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to return Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with interest @ 12% from 05.05.2007 till payment. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of September 2014.

Date of Filing:20.12.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

APPENDIX

 

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Beena Jose. Complainant.

Witness for the opposite parties:-

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1. Beneficiary Certificate. Dt:05.05.2007.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.