By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
The Brief of the complaint:- On seeing the advertisements of opposite parties in newspaper and visual medias that one who deposited in Accumulative Income Programme Scheme run by the opposite parties, the amount will be multiple within a short period of 2 years. On seeing the advertisements the complainant approached opposite party No.3 and deposited Rs.61,000/- with them. On 28.04.2009 the deposited amount matured and the complainant approached opposite
parties and asked for the deposited amount with their offer. Several times she approached the opposite parties in person as well as over phone, but she has not received the deposited amount with their assurance. At last 04.12.2010 she sent a lawyer notice demanding to return the amount, but the opposite parties were not responded. Hence she filed this petition. In petition it is prayed to pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,22,000/- along with lottery prizes and lottery commission. She further prayed that if the Forum is found that she is not entitle to get this amount the Forum may direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.61,000/- deposited by her with 18% of interest from the date of deposit. She also prayed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation Rs.2,500/- as cost.
2. The opposite parties were appeared and filed their version. In the version they stated that the 1st opposite party has no connection with this project and he is not the chairman and they denied that opposite parties advertised in visual medias to return double of the amount paid by the complainant along with lottery prize within a period of 2 years. The complainant joined in this scheme solely because of her appreciation of all the rules and conditions and of the better functioning of this scheme. In the rules of this scheme it is categorically stated that the benefit of
purchase commission will be distributed, as and when, to what extend the lottery purchase commission is available and with too strictly according to the seniority of the members joined in this scheme. It is not correct the deposits of the complainant with the opposite parties firm expired on 31.10.2005. it is submitted that the total amount of Rs.12,500/- of the complainant was not deposited but only entrusted in the LIS Deepasthambam Project of the opposite parties firm for supplying government lottery tickets and magazines. The opposite parties firm was accepting money in advance for purchasing lottery tickets and magazines on behalf of members joining in
this scheme. Out of Rs.12,500/- received from the complainant the opposite parties firm had purchased lottery tickets for Rs.7,000/- and issued the magazines. The complainant had received Rs.600/- from the opposite parties firm as the lottery prize. On 10.05.2006 the police raided the office of the opposite parties firm and registered a criminal case and directed to stop entire business activities. Subsequently The Honorable Additional Chief Magistrate Court Ernakulam directed to freeze the entire bank account of the opposite parties firm in CMP No.4483/2006 dated 11.08.2006. Thus the activity of purchasing lottery tickets and magazines were stopped and opposite parties firm could not continue the business. Thereafter the Karnataka police registered criminal case against the opposite parties. In that case Honorable High Court of Karnataka in criminal petition No.1942/2007 dated 21.01.2008, 27.05.2008 directed to refund the amount collected from the members after deducting the cost of lottery tickets and magazines supplied to the members from the amount entrusted by them. Hence the complaint is only entitled to get the amount as directed by the Honorable High Court of Karnataka. Hence opposite parties are ready to give back the entrusted amount after deducting cost of lottery tickets and magazines supplied to the complainant along with lottery prize if any. It is submitted that complaint is not entitled to claim any interest since there is no stipulation in the contract between complainant and the
opposite parties. On the facts and circumstances stated above it is prayed that this Forum may dismiss the same with cost.
3. On perusing the complainant version the following points are to be considered.
Point No.1:- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?.
Point No.2:- Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case she has filed her chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 documents. In the chief affidavit she has stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 series are the Beneficiary Certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. On perusing the same it is clear that on 05.06.2007 the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.61,000/- with opposite parties and the same expired on 28.04.2009. On perusing Ext.A2 it is clear that on 04.12.2010 the complainant has sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding to give back deposited amount of Rs.61,000/- along with 18% interest. Ext. A4 shows that the above notice is received by opposite party. It is true that in the version of opposite parties they have stated many things in the version but they have not proved the same before the Forum. It is clear that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.61,000/- with the opposite party and the opposite parties have not returned the amount with their assurance. This is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
5.Point No.2:- In the complaint the complainant as stated that the opposite parties have assured that the deposited amount will be multiple within a short period of 2 years. But the above fact is not proved before the forum. Any how it is clear that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.61,000/- with the opposite parties on 05.06.2007. So she is entitle to get that amount along with 12% interest and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost.
In the result the above complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.61,000/-(Rupees Sixty One Thousand Only) with 12% interest from 05.06.2007 till the payment is made. They are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and cost to the complainant.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th September 2011.
Date of filing:31.05.2011.
