KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 670/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 21..3..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               : MEMBER

1. Managing  Trustee, LIS(regd.)                  : APPELLANTS

   – Administrative Office,

    Palackal Court, M.G.Road,

    Ernakulam – 35.

2. P.V.Chacko,

    Managing Trustee,

    Palackal Court,

    M.G.Road, Ernakulam – 35.

(By Adv.O.V.Maniprasad)

                Vs.

P.M.Kuriakose,                                            : RESPONDENT

Moolayil House,

Vettickal.P.O.,

Mulamthuruthy,

Ernakulam – 682014.

(By Adv.O.V.Maniprasad)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.205/2010 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% from 9.2.2006.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.50000/- with the opposite parties on 9.2.2006 on condition that the opposite parties shall return double the amount after 1 ½ years.  It is his case that  although a number of times the complainant approached the opposite parties the amount was not returned.  A lawyer notice was issued on 8.11.09.  On 20.1.2010 the opposite parties vide advertisement expressed their willingness to disburse amounts of all depositors.  Complainant sought for return of double the amount with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and interest at 12%.

          3. It is the case of the opposite parties the amount was deposited on condition that the opposite parties would purchase lottery tickets and supply college magazines to the members.  Lottery tickets worth Rs.13,600/- has been purchased.  The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.8.06 freezed the accounts of the opposite parties.  It is also contended that the complaint barred by limitation.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1 to  A3.

          5. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence.

          6. We find that Forum has only directed to return the amount with interest at 12%. The offer was to repay double the amount deposited in 1 ½ years.  Freezing of the account etc has nothing to do with the complainant.  The amounts are in deposit with the opposite parties and the same is admitted. Hence the question of limitation does not arise.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.  Appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR            : MEMBER

ps