O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> These complaints are though filed by different complainants are filed against the same common Ops with similar allegations and similar reliefs are taken together for disposal by a common order.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaints filed by the complainants against the Ops are that they were influenced by paper publication issued by the Ops in Kannada Prajavani News Paper publishing that on the interested persons investing monies with them on computers, the investors would get rental income from them regularly. Then the first complainant invested Rs.3,50,000/- with Ops on the computers. Then second complainant invested Rs.50,000/- and that the third complainant invested Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the Ops executed agreements in their favour to pay monthly rentals and accordingly the Ops paid rental of the first complainant for 2 ½ months and also paid rental payments to the second complainant and third complainant till February 2009 but thereafter did not pay any rentals. The complainants further giving details of investments made by them have submitted apart from the rentals they paid for two months have committed default in paying the future rentals and thereafter Ops by locking their business premises found absconding with their monies. That there after they given complaints against the Ops to the concerned police, but nothing came out and the complainants thereby complaining to have been cheated by the Ops have prayed for direction to the Ops to refund Rs.3,50,000/- to the first complainant and Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant No. 2 and 3 and also to award cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Ops have been duly served by substituted service by publishing notice in Samyuktha Karnataka Daily Kannada News Paper which has wide publication but the Ops have not turned up as such are set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> The complainants in the course of enquiry into the complaints have filed their affidavit evidence besides producing copy of paper advertisement, pamphlet, agreement that were entered into between them and Ops, Bank statement, revealing payments made by them to Ops and receipts for having paid the investment money to the Ops. We have heard the counsel for the complainants and perused the records.<br /> <br /> The complainants along with their complaints have produced copy of Prajavani daily news paper pointing out the advertisement issued by the Ops, a broucher indicating attractive benefits to the investors, agreement entered into between them and Ops with copy of receipts issued by the first Op and statement of their bank accounts to prove the payments of monies to the Ops. On consideration of the documents produced by the Ops particularly the agreement, bank statement and receipts, the first complainant proved to had invested Rs.3,00,000/- with Ops. The second and third complainants have proved investments of Rs.50,000/- each with the Ops. It is further stated by them that the Ops at the beginning paid certain amounts as rental profits for having had invested their money. Thereafter, Ops stopped paying rentals despite requests and reminders. We do not have any contra statement against these documents produced by the complainants to prove their investments. The opponents, who had been given an opportunity to appear and defend the action of these complainants, have not turned up. We therefore find no reasons to discord the evidence of the complainants and documents they have produced as such the complainants have proved the deficiency in the service of the Ops in not acting upon the conditions of the agreement and promises they made. The first complainant claimed to had invested Rs.3,50,000/- but he has not produced any documents or proof to prove the investments of Rs.3,50,000/- on the contrary the documents he relied upon substantiate investment of Rs.3,00,000/- only as such he would be entitle for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- only. Conditions of agreement under the head investor’s protection, we find the liberty of the investors to withdraw the investment they made on termination of the agreement. Therefore, the complainants are entitle for withdrawals of their investments, as such we hold that the complaints deserve to be allowed and we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are allowed.<br /> <br /> Ops 1 and 2 are held as jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.3,00,000/- to the first complainant and Rs.50,000/- each to the complainant No.2 and 3 with interest @ 16% p.a from the date of filing of these complaints until those amounts are refunded.<br /> <br /> Ops 1 and 2 are directed to refund invested amounts with interest to the complainants as stated above within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Ops 1 and 2 shall also pay Rs.2,000/- to each of these complainants towards the cost of these complaints.<br /> <br /> The original order shall be kept in complaint No:1029/09 and the copies of the same shall be kept in the remaining complaints.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 18th February 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />