By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- The opposite parties have advertised through medias like television, newspaper etc.. that they are launching a new scheme of deposit, in which the deposit amount will be doubled within a few period that is within two years and also providing services of taking lottery tickets for the customers. Believing the advertisements and assurance given by the opposite parties the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 20.05.2005 as per Receipt No.24862, Rs.60,000/- on 07.06.2005 as per Receipt No.327730 and Rs.50,000/- on 12.08.2005 as per Receipt No.72911 in the Lis Deepasthambham Project under the ownership and supervision of the opposite parties. The amount were deposited and receipts were issued at Kalpetta in the office of opposite party No.1. Thereafter when maturity time attained the complainant approached opposite parties and demanded to return the deposited amount as per the promises. But opposite parties requested another five years time to pay the amount with benefits and also stated that the police and other departments intervened in the business of the opposite parties and they were forced to stop the business temporarily. It was further assured that they can restart the business within a few period and the amount with benefits will be given to the complainant within a period of five years from 12.08.2007. It was also assured that if the funds become ready they will repay the amount before the said period of five years.
2. Thereafter the complainant had approached opposite parties several occasions to release the amount but instead of paying the amount to the complainant, opposite parties have always extended time by saying lame excuses and till this date of complaint the opposite parties have not paid the amount due to the complainant. As per the promises of the opposite parties complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest from the date of deposit. The complainant alleges that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and he prays for cost and compensation of this proceedings.
3. The cause of action of the complainant arose on 09.08.2007 when the amount matured and become due and thereafter on 09.12.2009, 27.07.2010, 21.09.2011, 03.02.2012, 12.08.2012, 07.11.2012 and on 24.04.2013 the dates on which the complainant demanded for the payment of the amount due to the complainant through telephone and in person.
4. Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version.
5. The opposite parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The opposite parties stated that the time limit for filing this complaint is already over and the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The cause of action arose on the following dates 20.05.2005, 07.06.2005 and 12.08.2005. 8 years have passed after the cause of action so they stated that this complaint is barred by limitation, so they prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Points No.1 & 2:- The evidence in this case consists of testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 is the Receipt No.24862 of Rs.10,000/- dated 02.05.2005, Ext.A2 is the Receipt No.32730 of Rs.60,000/- dated 07.06.2005 and Ext.A3 is the Receipt No.72911 of Rs.50,000/- dated 12.08.2005 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Nothing else is produced by the complainant to prove the offers in the scheme such as lottery prize, double of deposit amount etc... As per the complaint, complainant approached the opposite parties several times to get back the deposited amount with promised benefits of the scheme. But opposite parties failed to refund the promised amount. The contention raised by the opposite parties such as limitation and jurisdiction aspects need more proof. No evidence produced from either side to prove their contentions.
8. According to opposite parties 8 years have passed after the cause of action but they have not produced any documents to prove their contention. But according to the complainant the cause of action arose on 09.08.2007 when the amount deposited became matured and due, and thereafter on 09.12.2009, 27.07.2010, 21.09.2011, 03.02.2012, 12.08.2012, 07.11.2012 and on 24.04.2013 the dates on which the complainant demanded for the payment of the amount due to the complainant through telephone and in person. If that be so considering the special circumstances of the case related to Lis Deepasthambham Project, there is no disputes regarding the deposit of the money in the above said scheme. After collecting crores of rupees from poor customers, opposite parties locked out their branch office all over Kerala. The only remedy available to the customers is to approach consumer Forums. More over the complainant had approached the opposite parties several occasions in which the above mentioned dates. There is nothing to disbelieve this statement. No evidence to the contrary. So relying on the evidence adduced by the complainant, we finds that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, so the complainant is entitled to get back the deposited amount together with reasonable interest, cost and compensation. The Points No.1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand) only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment to the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred) only as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply the Order 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 27th day of January 2014.
Date of Filing:15.10.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Fr. Sebastian Unnipallil. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt No.24862. Dt:20.05.2005.
A2. Receipt No.23730. Dt:07.06.2009.
A3. Receipt No.72911. Dt:12.08.2005.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
