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.8,125/- on 09.08.2005 as per Receipt No.71755 in the LIS Deepasthambham Project under the ownership and supervision of the opposite parties. The amount were deposited and receipt 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 the opposite parties failed to fulfill the conditions of deposit. As per the promise of opposite parties, now the complainant is entitled to for a sum of Rs.16,250/- with interest from the date of deposit of the amount. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times such as 09.12.2009, 27.07.2010, 21.09.2011, 03.02.2012, 07.11.2012 and on 24.04.2013 and on many other occasions complainant demanded the amount due to him. But the opposite parties failed to discharge the promised amount. And till date the opposite parties have not paid any amount to the complainant. Complainant also submitted that the opposite parties are making untenable averments in order to escape from the payment of deposit amount. Complainant alleges that the act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service. So the complainant filed this complaint to get an Order directing the opposite parties to return the deposited amount with interest @ 18% per annum with cost and compensation.
2. Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version.
3. 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 09.08.2005, 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.
4. 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.
5. Points No.1 & 2:- The evidence in this case consists of testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 is the Receipt No.71755 of Rs.8,125/- dated 09.08.2005 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.
6. 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 he approached the opposite parties several times to get back the deposited amount with offered benefits, lastly on 24.04.2013 the complainant approached the opposite parties to get back the deposited amount with offered benefits. 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. All that occasions opposite parties extended time by saying lame excuses. 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.8,125/- (Rupees Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five) 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.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) 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 28th day of February 2014.
Date of Filing:10.10.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. Karunakaran. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt No.71755. Dt:09.08.2005.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
