IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of August, 2010
Filed on 15.01.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member) in
C.C.No.12/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Saly Antony, 1. LIS Deepastambham project,
Antony, Palackal Court, Near Shenoys,
Parayakattil Veedu, M.G.Road, Kochin,
Pallithodu.P.O, Represented by Managing Trustee,
Cherthala. Kuriaachan Chacko. (By Adv.M.S.Jayesh) 2. Agency Manager,
Ground Floor, Vaarukattu Buildings,
Near K.S.R.T.C Bus Station, Cherthala.
Agency Manager now residing at:
Baby Antony, W/o Varkey Antony
Nenmelil, Ward-14, Ezhupunna Panchayat,
Ezhupunna .P.O, Cherthala.
(By Adv. K.T.Anish Mon)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant on 14th January 2006 deposited an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lacs forty thousand only) with the 2nd opposite party at the instance and for the 1st opposite party. The said money was so deposited consequent upon the assurance by the opposite parties that the money would be doubled and paid back at the most within two years. In the meantime, in May 2007, the 2nd opposite parties apprised of the complainant that Devadhan Lottery Service is their sister concern, and if the money deposited with the 2nd opposite party is transferred to the project of Devadhan Lottery, she would get added benefits with extreme exactitude. The complainant transferred the deposit on 2nd July 2007. On expiry of the deposit period, the complainant approached the opposite parties, but they declined to disburse the complainant's deposited amount. On repeated requests and demand, the complainant was given only the deposited amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lacs forty thousand only) vide two cheques dated 12th September 2009 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) and another cheque dated 20th October 2009. The opposite parties offered to give back the balance amount forthwith to the complainant immediately after the opposite parties properties being sold. But contrary to their promise, even on repeated requests and reminders, the opposite parties are not prepared to deliver the balance amount to the complainant. Aggrieved by this the opposite parties approached this Forum seeking compensation and other reliefs.
1. On sending notices the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contentions of the opposite parties are that they never allured the complainant to deposit the amount with the opposite parties, and hence there was no occasion for them to give any such fancy offers to the complainant. As matter of fact, the complainant on being drawn by the commendable service rendered by the opposite parties joined the particular scheme run by the opposite parties and entrusted the said amount to them for purchasing lottery tickets for the complaint. The opposite parties took lottery tickets for the complainant and issued magazines to her. The complainant also obtained prize money of Rs.l0,945/-(Rupees ten thousand nine hundred forty five only) from the lottery tickets so taken by the opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties complied with the specific rules and conditions contemplated by the scheme. However, unfortunately consequent to the registering of a criminal case and police raid in the office of the 1st opposite party, the opposite parties are constrained to stop its business activity. Still the 1st opposite party gave back to the complainant the entrusted amount of Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lacs forty thousand only). The opposite parties are not liable to pay any interest or any other amount to the complainant. The conditions of the said scheme do not provide so. The amount entrusted by the complainant was never transferred to any other project. More over, at the time of receiving the amount, the complainant had given up all claims with regard to the said scheme. The complaint is with out any basis which is liable only to be dismissed.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the power of attorney of the complainant as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A4 were marked. Exbt A1 is the brochure of LIS, Exbt A2 is the brochure of Jyothis Project, Exbt A3 is the receipt and Exbt A4 is the deed of Power of Attorney. On the side of the opposite parties documents Exbits B1 to B3 were marked. Exbt B1 is the Deepastambham project receipt, B2is the application to terminate membership and B3 is the statement of approval.
3. Keeping in view, the contentions of the parties, the immediate questions arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant deposited the amount with the opposite party on the offer by the opposite parties?
(2) If so what was the offer and if the complainant is entitled to the interest or any other benefit from the opposite parties?
4. We carefully went through the evidence put on record by the parties. The complainant case is that she deposited the amount with the 1st opposite party on the assurance of doubling of money within a short span of time. The opposite parties pointed out that it never handed out such a promise, but fascinated by the dynamic service of the opposite parties, the complainant joined as a member of its project of taking lottery tickets for its members and disburse the concerned prize to them. The evidence let in by the complainant does not show that the opposite parties made any offer to the effect that the amount would be doubled within a particular period. Nothing is there to show that the opposite parties accepted deposited on the offer of interest. On a bare perusal of Exbt B2, it comes out that the complainant filed an application seeking conclusion of membership on receipt of the amount Rs.2,40,000/-(Rupees two lacs forty thousand only) from the opposite party. It is more significant to note that during cross- examination of the power of attorney of the complainant, to a several pointed questions suggest to him, he was not able to deny them. He unhesitatingly admitted to virtually all suggestions put forward to him. He appears in the witness box totally unarmed or unenthusiastic with the complainant case. Needless to elaborate. Having taken into account all the relevant inputs of the facts and circumstances of the instant case we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant case has no its own legs to stand. As such the said case must fail.
In view of the discussions made herein above, the complaint is dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Adv.P.J.Antony (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Brochure of LIS
Ext. A2 - The Brochure of Jyothis Project
Ext. A3 series - The Receipt (2 nos.)
Ext. A4 - The Deed of Power of Attorney
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - The Deepastambham Project Receipt
Ext.B2 - The Application to Terminate Membership
Ext.B3 - The Statement of Approval
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
