By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- Attracted by the advertisements in all medias regarding the money duplication project the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- on 11.01.2010. On 22.01.2010 the complainant deposited Rs.2,000/- in the name of his daughter Amrutha. S. Pillai and on 17.12.2009 the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- in the name of his son Aswin. S. Pillai in LIS Deepasthambham Project. This project is owned and supervised by opposite parties. Towards the payments opposite parties issued receipts bearing No.12016, 12023 and 11269 respectively. As per the said project opposite parties offered double of the deposit amount together with lottery prize for a period of 2 years. On completion of the term opposite parties didn't release the entire amount with all offered benefits of the scheme. This is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So he prays for an Order directing the opposite parties to refund the double amount for the each period of two years along with the lottery prize and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with the cost of the proceedings.
2. Notices sent to opposite parties on 31.10.2012. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 represented and prayed time to file their version. But they were not filed version till 10.12.2012, hence opposite parties were set ex-parte on that day and proceeded with the case.
3. On considering the complaint and affidavit the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1 :- To prove the case complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 series documents were also marked. Ext. A1(a) is the receipt bearing No.12016 of Rs.5,000/- dated 11.01.2010 in the name of complainant. Ext.A1(b) is the receipt bearing No.12023 of Rs.2,000/- dated 22.01.2010 in the name of complainant's daughter Amrutha. S. Pillai and Ext.A1(c) is the receipt bearing No.11269 of Rs.5,000/- dated 17.12.2009 in the name of complainant's son Aswin. S. Pillai. Nothing else is produced by the complainant to substantiate his case. After the completion of the term complainant approached opposite parties several times and requested to refund the entire amount offered with all benefits of the scheme. But even after the completion of the stipulated term opposite parties are not ready to release the promised amount. This is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
5. Point No.2:- In order to prove the case the complainant produced only three receipts. No other documents produced before us to substantiate his case. Nothing else is produced before us to prove offers in the scheme such as Lottery prize, double of deposit amount etc... However the non refund of the amount deposited is nothing but deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get refund of the deposited amount along with reasonable interest and cost. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the compliant is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) only along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the realization of the full amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only towards cost and compensation. The
opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to comply this Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2013.
Date of Filing: 17.10.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1 Series (a). Receipt No.12016. Dt:11.01.2010.
A1 Series (b). Receipt No.12023. Dt:22.01.2010.
A1 Series (c). Receipt No.11269. Dt:17.12.2009.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
