By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- Opposite parties made wide advertisements in medias to the the effect that the amount deposited in the project would be doubled and multiplied to 208% (100%+108%) including lottery commission and prizes within a few months. This is also mentioned in the Notice issued by the opposite parties. At the time of making deposits it was specifically told to this complainant that deposits would be renewed and redeposit every 2 year unless withdrawn. On believing this the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in the Lis Deepasthambham Project in their branch office at Kalpetta and the same was acknowledged vide Receipt No.45145 dated 28.06.2005.
2. The complainant renewed the deposits every 2 year. Accordingly deposits stand renewed on 2007, 2009 and 2011. As on this date deposits stands renewed 3 times. No separate receipts were issued on such renewals from the branch office. The complainant had approached the Kalpetta branch office of the opposite parties many times to know about the growth of the deposits. On those occasions the Branch Manager of the opposite parties informed orally that the project is running smoothly and deposits are being grown and the deposited amount and accretions thereon at the promised rate will be repaid on demand.
3. The complainant was in need of urgent funds, he approached the branch office of the opposite parties at Kalpetta on 14.12.2011 and requested for refund of the deposits and increments thereof, he was informed that the project is being closed and put forth lame excuses for the delay causing in repaying the deposit and increments. The complainant waited in expectation of return of money. Again complainant approached opposite parties on 14.02.2012. On this day also the officers of the branch office repeated the said lame excuses. On 01.03.2012 when complainant went to the branch office, surprisingly noted that opposite parties closed down the branch office at Kalpetta and knew from local enquiries that they have shifted all records from here to their Head office at Ernakulam. The complainant was not served with any information regarding the shifting the branch office from Trident Arcade building to PK Tower, near new bus stand, Kalpetta and closing down of branch office at Kalpetta and shifting of records to Ernakulam. Immediately the complainant contacted the opposite parties in their office at Ernakulam for refund of the deposit and increments thereof over phone on 01.09.2012, but it was informed that they cannot repay the amount as requested since the project has been closed and they have no money for the same. The complainant again contacted opposite parties on 17.12.2012 as a last trial. The opposite parties did not even promise to pay back the deposit and accretions thereon any particular date.
4. Now the deposits are with the opposite parties for last 8 years. According to the promise of the opposite parties contained in their brochure and letter dated 20.03.2007 the deposit amount might have been multiplied to 1,60,000/- by June 2013. The cause of action for the complainant arose on 28.06.2005, the date on which the deposits were made with the opposite parties, during 2007, 2009 and 2011, the years by which the respective renewals were made. On 14.12.2011, 14.02.2012 and 01.09.2012 the dates on which the demands for return of money were made Kalpetta branch and on 17.12.2012 the date on which the demand for return of money were made at Ernakulam office of the opposite parties and thereafter at Kalpetta. There are no separate Certificate are issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for renewal of the deposit.
5. The opposite parties are not repaying the amount even after repeated demands made they have committed breach of trust. They shifted the branch office from Tirdent Arcade building to PK Tower Kalpetta and closed down the office without informing this depositor, complainant. Complainant alleges that this is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint and he also prays for an Order directing the opposite parties to return the deposited amount with reasonable interest, compensation and cost of this proceedings.
6. Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version.
7. 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 date 28.06.2005, 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant bearing No.45145 of Rs.20,000/- dated 28.06.2005. Ext.A2 is the copy of Brochure and Ext.A3 is the copy of Letter. This receipt is issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Exts.A2 is the copy of the brochure. The complainant alleges that at the time of deposit opposite party offered double of the deposited amount and lottery prize. There is no evidence in this brochure that they were given by opposite parties to this complainant. Mere production of brochures are not enough to prove the offers given by opposite party to this particular person. 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 the part of the opposite parties to defend their case.
10. According to the complainant the cause of action arose on 28.06.2005 when the amount deposited and thereafter on 14.12.2011, 14.02.2012 and on 17.12.2012 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 by the complainant. After collecting crores of rupees from poor customers, opposite parties locked out their branch offices 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. In this case opposite parties shifted their branch office at Kalpetta to another building and they have shifted all records from there to their head office at Ernakulam without intimating the depositors. Subsequently they closed their branch offices through out Kerala. On going through this we assume that opposite parties made willful efforts to escape from the liability. 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 with cost and compensation. The Points No.1 and 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.20,000/- (Rupees 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 cost and compensation 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 January 2014.
Date of Filing:04.07.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainants:
PW1. P. P. Mani. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt No.45145. Dt:28.06.2005.
A2. Copy of Brochure.
A3. Copy of Letter.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
