D.o.F:04/12/2010

D.o.O:10/5/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC 262/2010

                     Dated this, the 10th   day of May 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                        : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER 

Mohammed Kalathur Moideenkunhi,

S/o Moideenkunhi,

Rep. by his P.A.holder Abdulrahiman.K,

S/o Moideenkunhi, Siddiq Manzil,                            : Complainant

Ichilampady PO, Ednad , Kumbla Via,

Kasaragod

(Adv.P.V.Jayarajan,Kasaragod)

Mr.P.A.Kareem, S/o Mali Mohammed

Managing Director, Malabar Fun City Limited.

Mr.Ashraf Paika, S/o Mali Mohammed                      : Opposite parties

Director, Malabar Fun City Limited

Both are R/at Chandrampara House,

Nekraje , Kasaragod.

(Exparte)

                                                         ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ        : PRESIDENT

Bereft of unncessaries the case of the complainant is as follows:

     Complainant is a non resident Indian.  He applied for 6000 shares worth  `10/ each offered by opposite parties.   The opposite parties are the Managing Director and Director of  a registered limited company under the name and style M/s Malabar Fun City Limited.  They requested the complainant to be a part of their venture by  investing some  amount  towards the share capital of the company and offered sharing of profit as per rules.  Therefore the complainant purchased the shares.  As per the terms of the company the  first profit dividend should have been  made on 31/3/2009 but whenever the complainant enquired about the project, the reply was that the project is under process.  At last in the month of September 2010 when the complainant was in native place he personally enquired about the company and it is found that the registered office of the company was closed.  According to the complainant the opposite parties offered and promised attractive benefits with malafide  intentions for the investment made by him.  Hence the complaint.

2.   Though notices were issued by  registered post to opposite parties, notice to Ist opposite party returned  unserved with endorsement “ out of India”.  Notice to 2^nd opposite party also returned with endorsement ‘out of station’.  Hence the  paper publication is ordered against opposite parties and even after  publication of notice opposite parties failed to appear before the Forum.  Hence both opposite parties  had to be set exparte.

3.   Complainants P.A holder filed  proof affidavit in support of his case reiterating what is stated in the complaint.  Exts.A1 to A5 marked.  Counsel for complainant heard and  documents perused.

4.  Ext.A1 is copy of   receipt voucher evidencing  the payment of ` 60,000/- to the opposite parties.  Exts.A2 to A4 are copies of share certificates issued by opposite parties.  As per Exts.A1 to A4 it is seen that 6000 shares worth `10/- each allotted to the complainant.  Issuing shares and accepting  deposits, thereafter withholding from the payment of dividends and other benefits amounts to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained to him.

  Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund ` 60000/- with a compensation  of  ` 20,000 and cost of ` 3000/-to the complainant. Time for compliance is limited to one month from the date of receipt copy of order failing which   opposite parties shall be further liable to pay  interest @12% for ` 60,000/- from the date of complaint till payment together with the compensation and cost aforementioned.

Exts.A1- receipt voucher

A2 to A4  copy of share certificates

A5- power of attorney

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

eva