PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 28/02/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 115/2011
Between
Sajan Jacob, : Complainant
S/o. K.C. Chacko,
Thannimoottil house, (By Adv. Anto Thomas Adipuzha
Kulathoor P.O., “Vrindavan” 40/7777
Pathanamthitta-689 588. 1st Floor, T.D. Road, Ernakulam,
Kochi-682 035”
And
1. M/s. LIS Deepasthambham : Opposite parties
Project, Palackal court, (parties- in-person)
M.G. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin-682 035.
Rep. by its Chairman
Mr. P.V. Chacko.
2. P.V. Chacko, Chairman,
M/s. LIS Deepasthambham
Project, Palackal Court,
M.G Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin-682 035.
3. The Managing Trustee,
M/s. LIS Deepasthambham
Project, Palackal Court,
M.G. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin-682 035.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant subscribed in the LIS “DEEPASTHAMBHAM PROJECT” of the opposite party. The complainant deposited Rs. 40,000/- with the opposite party on 19-10-2005 in his own name and Rs. 25,000/- in the name of his father on 25-10-2005. the complainant is the nominee in the said deposit. As per the assurance made by the opposite parties the complainant is entitled for Rs. 80,000/- by 18-10-2006 and Rs. 50,000/- by 24-10-2006 respectively. Even after the maturity period of 1 year, the opposite parties have failed to pay Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant. The opposite parties informed that there was some legal problems and to settle it, some time is required. They sent written communication to all the customers seeking time to repay the amount to its customers. Till date the opposite parties have not repaid the amount deposited by the complainant with benefits. The action of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 01-02-2011 to the opposite parties. No reply was sent by them. The complainant sought the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
i. to pay Rs. 2,14,714/- with 15% interest from 25-02-2011 and compensation for the loss and damages.
ii. To pay Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite party
The complainant had entrusted the amounts with the opposite party firm on 19-10-2005 and 25-10-2005. The time limit for filing a complaint for money had already been over and hence the complaint is not maintainable as barred by limitation. The complainant had entrusted the amount with LIS Deepasthambham Project floated by M/s. LIS (Regd) Sri. P.V. Chacko is not the Chairman of LIS. LIS is a registered partnership firm and it does not have any Chairman. Sri. P.V. Chacko is not having any connection with the transaction mentioned in the complaint. Hence Sri. P.V. Chacko is not a necessary party in this case. The opposite parties did not give any advertisement in Medias to return double the amount deposited by the complainant within a period of 1 year. The complainant has made a wrong assumption of doubling the amount within a period of one year. The complainant joined the scheme solely because of his appreciation of all the rules and conditions and rather the better functioning of the scheme. As per rules of the scheme benefits would be given to the members as and when to what extend the lottery purchase commission is available and that too strictly according to the seniority of the members joining the scheme. The maturity dates 18-10-2008 and 24-10-2006 as mentioned in the complaint is imaginary and is based on the wrong assumption of the complainant. As per the direction in CMP No. 4483/2006, dated 11-08-2006 the entire bank accounts of the opposite party firm was freezed. Now this matter is under consideration of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The complainant is not entitled to claim any interest. There is no stipulation in the contract between the complainant and the opposite party to that effect. None of the prayers sought for in the complaint is liable to be granted.
3. The complainant and the opposite parties represented through counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for both sides.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the
deposited amounts from the opposite parties?
ii. Compensation and costs if any
5. Points Nos. i & ii. Admittedly, the complainant deposited Rs. 40,000/- with the opposite party on 19-10-2005 in his own name and Rs. 25,000/- in the name of his father on 25-10-2005 for a period of one year. Exts.A1 to A6 are the evidence of transaction between the parties. The opposite parties averred that the complaint is barred by limitation. Apart from the averment in the version nothing is before us to substantiate the same. In Ext. A7 letter the opposite party stated the status of the cases pending before the court of law and they have taken some steps to avoid the apprehension of the customers in disbursing the deposited amount. Moreover during cross examination of PW1 the opposite parties suggested that they are willing to give the deposited amount. In that view of the matter we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is maintainable and the plea of limitation is unsustainable. During cross examination PW1 admitted that he had received Rs. 4,000/- from the opposite party. Thus the opposite party is liable to pay the deposited amount to the complainant with its interest after deducting the admitted amount of Rs. 4,000/-. Since we have already ordered interest for the deposited amounts we are not ordering any compensation to the complainant even though there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Nevertheless the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of proceedings to the complainant.
6. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:-
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to
the complainant an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and 25,000/- as
per Ext. A5 and A6 receipts along with interest @ 12% p.a.
from the date of receipt till realization after deducting Rs.
4,000/- from the said amounts.
ii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation
costs to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of application form
A2 : Copy of application form
A3 : Copy of temporary receipt
dt. 19/10/2005
A4 : Temporary receipt dt. 25-10-2005
A5 : Copy of Receipt No. 102951
A6 : Copy of receipt NO. 108558
A7 : Copy of notice
A8 : Letter dt. 01-02-2011
A9 : Copy of AD card
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : Sajan Jacob
