By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The Complainant deposited Rs.4,00,000/- in the scheme of accumulated income program run by the Opposite Party attracted by wide advertisement in visual and other medias on 13.06.2007 the deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- was by taking 400 units. There was an assurance from the Opposite Party in the particular scheme, that if a person deposited Rs.1,000/- on each units he will be returned double the deposited sum within 2 years and apart from that commission through lottery prizes would also be accumulated in the account. The duration of the scheme was completed on 12.06.2009 and the complainant demanded refund of the amount deposited with profits as assured. The Opposite Party on completion of the period is not ready to refund the amount with profit .

2. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to:-

1. Give back the Complainant Rs.4,00,000/- the amount deposited with double benefits of the sum deposited.

2. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.50,000/- towards the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.2,500/-.

3. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. There is specific terms agreed between the Complainant and Opposite Party that if any dispute arises it would be sort out before the arbitrator to settle it

4. There was no offer as alleged in the complaint that the amount deposited would be returned doubling the sum with a period of 2 years and no advertisement in that effect were telecasted in visual media or in any other way. The Complainant had not deposited Rs.4,00,000/- with the Opposite Party instead of deposit it was an investment by the Complainant for purchasing government lottery tickets and magazines. The service of the Opposite Party had been in such a way that the amount entrusted would be utilized for purchasing lottery tickets and prizes won would be accumulated in the accounts of the Complainant. Out of the amount deposited by the Complainant Rs.64,000/- was spent by the Opposite Party for the purchase of lottery tickets and magazines were also sent to the Opposite Party. There is no maturity period averred in the complaint. The amount was invested by the Complainant in the scheme as agreed by the terms of the project. The money was received by the Opposite Party for purchasing of lottery tickets and magazines. The refund of the amount was based on the principles of 1^st com first served.

5. While the scheme was in smooth running judicial interferences met with and in such a situation the smooth running of the scheme effected stagnancy. The reimbursement of the amount to the party is through prizes won in lottery. The conductivity of this project found to be legally permitted and the Opposite Party continued the business. If the Complainant is not interested to proceed with the scheme she can very well receive the invested amount deducting the amount spent for the purchases of lottery tickets.

6. The Opposite Party is not responsible to pay back the amount with interest under any legal obligation. The claim of the Complainant is unsustainable. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in the refund of the amount invested?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of the

Complainant and photo copy of the receipts which are marked as Ext.A1 series 10 in numbers.

9. The Opposite Party has no oral evidence it is admitted by the Opposite Party and evidenced by the Ext.A1 series that Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the Opposite Party and the date of joining in the scheme was on 13.06.2007. The Opposite Party contented that the scheme does not envisage the refund of the amount with interest. The Complainant joined the scheme absolutely in appreciation of the terms agreed. How ever no document is produced by the Opposite Party to substantiate their contention. The claim of the Opposite Party is that out of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited Rs.64,000/- was spent for purchase of lottery tickets and magazines. In the oral testimony of the Complainant, who is examined as PW1, it is deposed that she has no knowledge of the purchase of lottery tickets and the receivable commission amount. The Opposite Party has not produced any document in support of that contention. From the oral evidence and documents produced it is to be considered that the Opposite Party received Rs.4,00,000/- the non refund of the amount deposited is a deficiency in service. The Complainant is to be refunded the deposited sum with interest.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) jointly and severally with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit of the sum till payment. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st January 2011.

Date of filing:01.10.2010

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Annakutty. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series 10 in numbers). Copy of Receipts.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.