CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri. Bose Augustine, President

     Sri.K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.149/12

Tuesday, the 30^th day of April, 2013.

 

Petitioner                                              : Mahesh John,

                                                               Mahesh Bhavan,

                                                               Parambuzha PO, Kottayam

                                                               Pin-686 032.

                                                               (Adv. Thomas Kurian.K)

                                                            Vs.

 

Opposite Party                                     : 1) Lis Educational and Charitable Trust,

                                                                  Palackal Court,

                                                                  Near Shenoy’s M.G.Road,

                                                                  Cochin-35 Rept.by Chairman

                                                                  P.V. Chacko.

                                                                  Pin 682035.

                                                             2) Joy John,

                                                                  Managing Partner,

                                                                  M/s.DLS Jyothis Project,

                                                                  Bharathi Building, M.G.Road,

                                                                  Ernakulam-682011.

                                     

                         

 

 

            The case of the petitioner filed on 20-4-12 is as follows.

 

            The 1^st opposite party is a Trust, represented by its Chairman and 2^nd opposite party is the Managing Partner. The opposite party introduced “Deepasthambham Project”. The complainant joined this project and deposit the amount on 8-11-05 and 22-12-05 with the opposite parties Kottayam branch office. And the opposite party issued “Deepasthambham Project” receipt No.122592 vide user name MAHESHC 1190 for Rs.30,000/- dated 8-11-05 and receipt No.144920 vide user name MAHESHD 9070 for Rs.30,000/- dated 22-12-05, total Rs.60,000/-. As per the terms and conditions and contract between the petitioner and opposite parties, the opposite parties are agreed to pay the amount along with interest on demand. But the petitioner demanded the amount as per the agreement and contract. The opposite parties maliciously and purposefully evaded to refund the amount as per the conditions stipulated by them to the petitioner. The act of the opposite party is non-settling the claim, amounts to deficiency in service and non-performance of the promises and assurances of the contract between the petitioner and opposite parties. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant claiming refund an amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, compensation of Rs.25,00/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.

            Notice was served to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance. But the opposite party failed to file version hence set expartee.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 marked.

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that he joined in “Deepasthambham Project” conducted by the opposite parties and deposited a total of Rs.60,000/-. Evidencing the deposit, the complainant produced copies of “Deepasthambham Project” receipt No.122592 dated

08-11-05 and “Deepasthambham Project” receipt No.144920 dated 22-12-05 and they are marked as Ext.A1 and A2 respectively.    The complainant averred that the opposite parties are liable to return the deposit amount with the promised rate of interest. According to the complainant, the act of opposite party in not returning the amount, even after demanding several times is a clear case of deficiency in service. As the opposite parties choose not to contest the allegations of the complainant against them the averments of petitioner remains unchallenged. After going through the entire evidence on record, we find that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed. In the result

i)                    Opposite parties are order to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- with 12% interest per annum from 22-12-2005 till realisation, to the petitioner

ii)                   Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.

iii)                 Opposite parties are order to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the petitioner, as litigation cost.

Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.

 

Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-

                        Sri.K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member         Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Copy of Deepasthambham Project receipt No.122592 dtd8-1-05

Ext.A2-Copy of Deepasthambham Project receipt No.144920 dtd22-1-05.

Nil

 

By Order,