CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                            

   CC No 180/12

                                    Friday the 19^th day of October,2012

 

Petitioner                                              : Eapen Mammen,

                                                               Malayil Sharon,

                                                               P.O.Chenneerkara,

                                                               Pathanamthitta,

                                                               Pin 689 503.

 

                                                            Vs.

 

Opposite party                                     : Lis

                                                             Kerala Admin Office,

                                                             Palakal Court, M.G.Road,

                                                             Ernakulam, Cochin-682 035.

                                                            2) DLS Jyothis,

                                                                Pulickal Parambil,

                                                                Bldg,Opp.Baselious College,

                                                                Near Manorama Jn , KKRoad,

                                                                Kottayam.

 

 

 

            The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:-

            The complainant and his wife together deposited Rs.6,250/-, Rs.40,000, Rs.11,000/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.1000/- with the opposite party vide seven different receipts. As per terms of each deposit, the deposits were to have doubled within two years and the total amounts were to be paid to the complainant. On making demand for the return of the aforementioned amounts due on the deposits, the opposite parties refused the payment of money due on the deposits on the ground that cases had been initiated against them and that the same were pending and therefore the amounts could not be disbursed. According to the petitioner the refusal of the opposite parties to refund the amounts due on the said seven deposits amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant stated that an amount of Rs.62,250/- is due from the opposite parties and they are entitled to realize the amount with interest @ 12% . Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the refund of Rs.62,250/- with interest and litigation cost of Rs.105/-.

            Notice to 2^nd opposite party returned with endorsement “intimated”. 2^nd opposite party called absent and was set expartee. Notice was served to 1^st opposite party and they entered appearance. But the 1^st opposite party failed to file version ever after so many postings. Hence 1^st opposite party was also set expartee.

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

ii)                   Relieves and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 to A7.

            Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the seven documents placed on record. The complainant averred that he and his wife together made seven deposits with the opposite parties. Evidencing the said deposits the complainant produced seven copies of receipts and they are marked as Ext.A1 to A7. The complainant further averred that on making demand for return of the amounts the opposite parties refused payment of money. The complainant alleged that the act of opposite parties in withholding the payment of amounts due under the seven fixed deposits is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. As the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegations and averments of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. On scanning the affidavit of the petitioner and the documents Ext.A1 to A7, we also feel that the opposite parties are deficient in their service and unfair in their trade. Hence we find that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly. 

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

            The opposite parties will give the total deposit amount of Rs.62,250/- which is due to the complainant on seven deposits vide receipts marked as Ext.A1 to A7 with 12% interest from the respective maturity dates till payment along with litigation cost of Rs.105/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19^th day of October, 2012.

 

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Presidient(I/C)                        Sd/-                                        

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

                                                                       

Ext.A1-Deepasthambham project deposit of Rs.6250/- vide receipt No.81046 on 2/9/05

             by Ponnamma Mammen.

Ext.A2-DLS Jyothis project deposit of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt no.17984 on 3/5/07 by

             Eapen Mammen.

Ext.A3-DLS Jyothis Project deposit of Rs.11,000/- vide receipt no.17986 on 3/5/07 by

            Eapen Mammen.

Ext.A4-Sarvaiswarya services deposit of Rs.1,000/-vide receipt no.7500 on 22/8/08 by

            Eapen Mammen

Ext.A5-Sarvaiswarya services deposit of Rs.2,000/-vide receipt no.7501on 22/8/08 by

            Ponnamma Mammen.

Ext.A6-DLS Jyothis project deposit of 1000/- vide receipt no.17814 on 30-7-10 by

            Ponnamma Mammen.

Ext.A7-DLS Jyothis project deposit of Rs.1000/- vide receipt no.17815 on 30-7-10 by

             Eapen Mammen.

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.