By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a subscriber of the project run by the Opposite Parties depositing Rs.35,000/- in total which were on 23.06.2005 and 17.11.2005. The entry of the Complainant to the project was under the attractive offers that the amount deposited in the project would be multiplied to cent percent within few months and the subscriber would be given prizes of the lottery tickets taken in behalf by the Opposite Party. On 30.3.2010 the Complainant approached the Opposite party to close the scheme and refund the amount deposited with profit. To the utter surprise of the Complainant it was informed that the scheme ceased to exist and the refund of the amount is not possible. The Complainant was under believe that the amount deposited would have reached to multiples of the amount deposited and in addition to it. The prizes won in the Lottery tickets would have also deposited in the accounts. The act of the Opposite Party is absolutely a deficiency in service contradictory to the offer made by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.11,20,000/- the estimated sum refundable to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- The amount as offered in the complaint were entrusted to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is not in habit of receiving deposit. The complaint itself is time barred Rs.5,000/- and Rs.30,000/- vide two receipts were invested by the Complainant in the project. The amount was not actual deposited instead the Opposite Party were entrusted with sum for purchasing government lottery tickets and magazines. The Opposite Party purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.13,600/- and the Complainant was also issued the magazines. The project is envisaged for the purpose which was informed to the Complainant and the admission to the project was fully in accordance with the connivance of the Complainant. The major portion of the amount deposited was spent for the purchase of lottery and the prizes received from lottery were also deposited in the account of the Complainant. The purchase of lottery and magazines were stopped under judicial proceedings. The complaint is unsustainable and it is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.
3. The points which are to be decided :-
Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the Complainant, Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents produced. The Complainant also tendered oral testimony in this case, whereas the Opposite Party have no oral evidence.
5. The case of the Complainant is that the amount deposited under influence of attractive offers by the Opposite Party were not given back as assured. The Complainant entrusted Rs.5,000/- vide receipt No.41928 and Rs.30,000/- vide receipt No.127698 to the Opposite Party. Ext.A3 series is the pamphlet which exposes the way in which the amount entrusted would be multiplied. On perusal of this documents the Opposite Party assured the subscribers that the amount entrusted with the Opposite Party will be multiplied to cent percent within few months. The Opposite Party contented that the amount given to the Opposite Party were invested for the purchase of lottery tickets. There is attractive offer from the side of the Opposite Party regarding the doubling of the amount deposited. The prizes received out of lottery tickets would become an additional amount to the deposited sum. The income from lottery according to the Opposite Party would become 8.33%. The offer of the Opposite Party made the Complainant to entrust the amount. The Opposite Party also contended that there was no offer from their side to return the interest or any profit. How ever the pamphlet is with wide examination how the amount deposited would be developed to the multiples of the same. The Opposite Party further contented that the amount entrusted by the Complainant was used to purchase the lottery tickets but nothing is brought out in evidence to establish his contention that the lottery tickets were purchased by the Opposite Party in behalf of the Complainant. The glittering offers of the Opposite Party to contract the subscribers to the scheme or otherwise the project is nothing but a deficiency in service. The amount entrusted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party is to be refunded with interest. By the laps of years it is uncertain to what extant the amount deposited could be increased. How ever the Complainant is entitled to get back the amount deposited with interest.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with an interest at the rate of 12% from 23.06.2005 onwards and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) is to be refunded with an interest at the rate of 12% from 17.11.2005 onwards. The complainant is also entitled for the interest till the realization of the amount. The Opposite parties are further directed to give the Complainant Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th November 2010.
Date of filing: 24.06.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Sankaran Nair. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt No.41928.
A2. Copy of Receipt No.127698.
A3 series. Copy of Copy of Notice.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
