By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

Brief of the complaint:- Opposite parties widely advertised in all medias regarding their money duplication project. Attracted by this advertisements complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- on 30.01.2006 in LIS Deepasthambham Project under the ownership and supervision of opposite parties. Towards the payment opposite parties issued Receipt bearing No.167213. As per the said project on completion of every two year opposite parties offered double of the deposited amount together with lottery prizes and commissions. After the said period the complainant approached the opposite parties branch office several times to release the deposited amount with all offered benefits of the scheme but opposite parties were not ready to release the promised amount so far. Hence complainant filed this complaint. According to complainant this is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So he prays for an Order directing the opposite parties to refund the promised amount with compensation and cost of this proceedings.

2. Notices sent to opposite parties. They filed Vakalath but no version filed. Hence they set ex-parte on 24.08.2013 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 complainant's case he filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 and A2 documents were also marked. Ext.A1 is the Receipt bearing No.167213 dated 30.01.2006 of Rs.5,000/- and Ext.A2 is the Copy of Minutes. The inception of complainant on this scheme was on 30.01.2006. Nothing else is produced by the complainant to substantiate his case. After the completion of the period complainant approached several times to release the promised amount but opposite parties were not ready to release the promised amount. So we finds that this is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
 

5. Point No.2:- In order to prove the case complainant produced Payment Receipts. Nothing else is produced by the complainant to prove the offers in the scheme such as lottery prizes, commission, double of deposit amount etc... However the non refund of the deposited amount is nothing but deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. So the

complainant is entitled to get refund of deposited amount with reasonable interest and compensation.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till full payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as cost of this proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to comply this Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October 2013.

Date of Filing:10.05.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:
 

PW1. Mary Mathai(Chief Affidavit). Complainant.

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.
 

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Receipt No.167213. Dt:30.01.2006.

A2. Copy of Minutes.
 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.