By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the refund of the amount deposited in a special scheme run by the Opposite Parties.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased 480 units giving Rs.625/- per unit on 09.09.2005 and before that on 07.07.2005 as single unit was also purchased giving Rs.625/-. The purchasers of the units was influenced by the advertisement of the Opposite Party that unit purchasers would be getting the double amount of the deposited sum for 2 years and as an additional income the commission of prizes won in lottery tickets would also be given to the depositors. The deposit amount in the way of purchasing units reached maturity on 06.07.2007. After that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 01.06.2009 and afterwards for the refund of the amount deposited.
3. The Opposite party stated one or other reason not to refund the amount invested. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the double of the sum deposited by the Complainant whereas on the other hand if it is seen that the Opposite party is not in a position to refund the deposited sum as assured by them, there may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to give back the Complainant Rs.30,625/- with an interest at the rate of 18%. The Complainant is also to be paid Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and cost Rs.5,000/-.
4. Opposite parties filed version in short it is as follows. The averment in the complaint is that the amount deposited by the Complainant was under influence of advertisements that the entrusted sum would be doubled and in addition to that an extra profits would be given to the subscribers out of the prizes won in lottery tickets purchased in behalf of the parties etc are denied by Opposite Parties.
5. In the out set the Opposite Parties have not in habit of receiving deposit and no interest is paid towards the deposited amount. The scheme run by the Opposite Parties are intended to increase the amount entrusted. The Complainant had entrusted Rs.3,00,625/- for purchase of lottery tickets and magazines. The admission of the Complainant to the scheme is absolutely because of her own desire and the amount is entrusted does not have any maturity period. Refund of the entrusted sum is based on the principle first cum first served. The Opposite Party purchased lottery tickets worth of Rs. 1,68,350/- and issued magazines to the party. The Complainant received Rs.31,504/- as commission out of prizes won from the tickets purchased. The scheme run by the Opposite Party was hindered by Judicial Proceedings how ever as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Opposite Parties are refunding the entrusted some deducting the amount spent for purchasing lottery tickets. There was no latches on the part of the Opposite Party in running the scheme. If the Complainant is at desire to get back the remaining amount after deducting the expense for purchase of lottery tickets the Opposite Parties are ready for it. Under no circumstances the Complainant is not in a position to refund the amount entrusted with interest and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
6. The points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 and A2 are documents produced for the Complainant. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also considered. The Opposite Party has not tendered any evidence.
8. The Complainant deposited Rs.3,00,625/- vide receipt No.83598 issued to the Complainant acknowledging the acceptance of Rs.3,00,000/- towards Deepasthambham Project on 09.09.2005 and receipt No. 51228 is the receipt issued to the Complainant on purchase of a single unit of Rs.625/-. There is no dispute in respect of the acceptance of the amount except refunding of the amount entrusted. The Opposite Party did not bring forth any documents to substantiate their contention. The purchase of lottery tickets are accumulated with the deposited sum. But it is not supported by documentary evidence. The Opposite Party also averred in the statement that the deposited sum is not having any maturity period how ever refunding of the amount and in which way it is to be effected is not detailed. The non refund of the amount invested in the scheme is nothing but a deficiency in service. The Complainant is to be refunded the deposited amount with interest along with cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant is to be given back Rs.625/- (Rupees Six hundred and Twenty five only) with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of 07.07.2005 till the date of payment and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh only) with an interest at the rate of 12% from 09.09.2005 till the date of payment. Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount to the Complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st January 2011.
Date of filing: 09.09.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt No.83598.
A2. Copy of Receipt No.51228.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
