By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the non refund of the deposited amount by the Opposite Party.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- the Complainant deposited Rs.37,500/- in his own name and in the name of his wife in the scheme run by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties gave out wide propaganda that the amount deposited in their scheme named LIS Deepasthambham would be doubled within few months through lottery commission. The Complainant deposited the amount relying on the assurance and propaganda of the Opposite Party. On 30.03.2010 the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party to realize the growth of the deposited sum and for refund of the same. As a shock to the Complainant it was informed that the amount deposited cannot be refunded due to lack of fund. The Complainant estimates that the assurance given by the Opposite Party if meets its ends the Complainant would have received Rs.8,00,000/-. The non refunding of the deposited sum of the Complainant is a deficiency in service. The Complainant is to be refunded Rs.8,00,000/- and towards compensation and cost Rs.50,000/- is also to be given to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.
3. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The allegation of the Complainant is that Rs.18,750/- deposited in his wife name in the Deepasthambham Project of the Opposite Party is incorrect. The Opposite Parties do not receive or entertain any deposit instead the Opposite Parties are entrusted the amount of Rs.37,500/- for the purchase of lottery tickets supplied by government and magazines. In this case the Complainant were sent magazines. Out of the total amount entrusted, Rs.15,200/- were spent by the Opposite Parties for the purchase of lottery tickets.
4. There was no assurance from the Opposite Party that the amount entrusted would be doubled within few months. The growth of the accepted amount is only through the accumulation of prizes won out of the lottery tickets purchased by the Opposite Party in behalf of the Complainant. The smooth running of business was hindered by a criminal case registered against the Opposite Party and the bank account was freezed and thereafter the business could not be run smoothly. The Opposite Party is ready to give back the amount entrusted by the Complainant and his wife along with prizes if won any. The claim of the Complainant for an exorbitant sum is not maintainable and complaint itself is barred by limitation and it is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext.A1 to A5 are the documents produced. The Complainant is also examined as PW1. Opposite Parties have not tendered any oral evidence.
7. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that Rs.37,500/- was deposited by the Complainant. The scheme was not scheduled to be having maturity period. According to the Complainant the amount was demanded to be refunded on 30.3.2010 and the Complainant was not disposed of refunding the amount deposited as assured in the brochure of the scheme that is Ext.A5 series. The project is named as LIS Deepasthambham Project and the concern of Opposite Party is having 16 branches in India it is also averred that the amount deposited would be doubled within few months and in addition to the amount deposited commission from lottery prizes also to be given to the subscribers in the scheme. It is a fact that the Complainant in anticipation of doubling the amount deposited the sum in the scheme. The contention of the Opposite party that the amount received from the Complainant was used for the purchase of lottery tickets but no document is produced to establish his contention that the amount deposited by the Complainant was on condition that the right of refunding the amount would be revoked if no prizes are won. The non refunding of the deposited sum of the Complainant is a deficiency in service and the amount deposited by the Complainant is to be given back with interest and also cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.37,500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven thousand Five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of receipt of amount till the date of payment. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th December 2010.
Date of filing:25.09.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Thomas. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt No.160870.
A2. Copy of Receipt No.4693.
A3. Copy of Receipt No.126200.
A4. Copy of Receipt No.59961.
A5 series. Copy of Notice.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
