By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:

Brief of the complaint:- The complainant deposited Rs.1,22,500/- on 07.06.2005, 05.09.2005, 13.07.2005 and 24.08.2005. At the time of depositing the amount opposite parties promised that it will be utilized for lottery business and it will be returned with profit. But the opposite parties not act upon their promise. Hence the complainant approached opposite parties several occasions at last on 04.06.2010 and demanded for the money. But they have not paid any amount that is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence it is prayed that to give direction to opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- with 18% interest from the date of deposit and also prayed to give direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation.

2. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version. In the version they admitted that the complainant joined in the scheme solely because of his appreciation of all the rules and conditions and of the better functioning of the scheme. They also admitted that the complainant has entrusted an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- in the LIS Deepasthambham Project for supplying government lotter tickets and magazines. The opposite party has not accepted any deposit from anybody including the complainant. The opposite party firm was accepting money in advance for purchasing lottery tickets and magazines on behalf of members joined in this scheme and the major portion of the commission amount availed out of these purchase is dividing among members in such a way that first come first basis will get the benefit of commission. On 10.05.2006 at the behest of some interested parties police raided the office of the opposite party firm and registered a criminal case and directed to stop the entire business activities. Subsequently, the Honorable Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in CMP No.4483/2006 dated 11.08.2006 has directed to freeze the entire bank accounts of the opposite party firm. Thus the activity of purchasing lottery tickets and magazines were stopped and the opposite party firm could not continue the business thereafter. Further stated that Honorable High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.1942/2007 directed to refund the amount collected from the members after deducting cost of lottery tickets and magazines. Hence the complainant is only entitled for the return of the amount as directed by the High Court of Karnataka. The 1^st opposite party closed his office in the year 2007 so there is no occasion to demand the return of money from the opposite parties. The complainant has no legal right to claim the amount which was entrusted for the purchase of government lottery tickets. Hence it is prayed that to dismiss the complaint with the cost of the opposite parties.

3. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Relief and Cost.

4. Point No.1 :- On going through the Ext.A5 and A6 there is no time limitation is prescribed by opposite parties. In the complaint the complainant stated that several times at last on 04.06.2010 the complainant approached opposite parties and demanded for money. Hence we think that the case is not barred by limitation. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

5. Point No.2 :- To prove the complainant's case he has filed his proof affidavit Ext.A1 to A7 documents are also marked. In the proof affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 13.07.2005 for an amount of Rs.32,500/-. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 05.09.2005 for an amount of Rs.2,500/-. Ext.A3 is the receipt issued to the complainant on 07.06.2005 for an amount of Rs.21,875/-. Ext.A4 is the receipt for an amount of Rs.65,625/- dated 24.08.2005 in favor of the complainant. On going through the above documents it is clear that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- before the opposite party on 13.07.2005, 05.09.2005, 07.06.2005 and 24.08.2005. No documents before us the opposite party has paid any amount to the complainant. On going through Ext.A6 and A7 it is clear that the opposite parties have offered some benefits. So non return of the deposited amount with their assurance is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

6. Point No.3 :- On perusing the Ext.A1 to A4 it is clear that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- before the opposite party. On going through Ext.A5 and A6 it is clear that the opposite parties have promised to return the amount with some benefits. No documents before us to show that the opposite parties have fulfilled their promises. Anyhow the complainant is entitled to get the deposited amount that is Rs.1,22,500/- from the opposite parties with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the payment is made. He is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- as cost of this litigation. Point No.3 is decided accordingly.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the payment is made. The opposite parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation. This is to be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29^th March 2012.

Date of Filing:24.10.2011.