Kerala

Wayanad

CC/104/2011

T.A.Shameena,Aysha Manzil,East Palamuck,Nalloornadu.PO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIS Deepasthambam Project and DLS Jyothis Project,Rep by its Branch Manager,P.K.Tower,Kalpetta. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2011

ORDER

 
CC NO. 104 Of 2011
 
1. T.A.Shameena,Aysha Manzil,East Palamuck,Nalloornadu.PO.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. LIS Deepasthambam Project and DLS Jyothis Project,Rep by its Branch Manager,P.K.Tower,Kalpetta.
2. P.V.Chacko,Managing Partner/Trustee,Lis Deepasthambam Project,Palakkal Court,M.G.Road,Ernakulam.
Ernakulam.
Ernakulam.
Kerala
3. Joy John,Managing Partner,M/S DLS Jyothis Project,Palakkal Court,Ernakulam.
Ernakulam
Ernakulam
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW Member
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-

The gist of the case is as follows.


 

2. The complainant deposited Rs.2,500/- on 31.10.2005 and Rs.3,000/- on 05.05.2007 with the opposite parties. At the time of deposit the opposite parties assured the complainant that the

 

 

deposited amount would be doubled within a period of two years. But after the maturity of deposit the opposite parties did not pay back the amount even after repeated demands. There is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to payback the doubled amount of deposit with cost and compensation.


 

3. The opposite parties did not appear or filed their version. Hence the case was declared exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2.


 

4. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?.

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?.


 

5. Point No.1:- Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 are the receipts given by the opposite parties for the deposit of the total amount Rs.5,500/-. No evidence is brought before this Forum to show that the deposit is given back by the opposite parties. So, the contention of the complainant is accepted is true and the point No.1 is decided against the opposite party.


 

6. Point No.2:- There is no evidence to show that the opposite parties had assured to give back the deposit doubled within a period of two years. However, the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount with reasonable interest and compensation.


 

 

 

Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to give Rs.5,500/-(Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred Only) the deposited amount with 12% interest from the date of deposit to the date of repayment. The opposite parties are also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 30 days of this order.


 

Pronounced in Open Forum on this day of 30th September 2011.

Date of filing:16.06.2011.

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.