By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for the refund of the amount deposited.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had taken 20 units in the accumulated income programme scheme run by the Opposite Parties. The advertisement of the scheme run by the Opposite Party was that the amount deposited in the scheme would be doubled within a period of two years and as an additional profit lottery tickets would be purchased in behalf of the subscriber. The prize won in lottery tickets would become an additional amount of profit to the invested sum. The deposited sum reached maturity on 06.05.2009 the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party in several occasions afterwards for the refund of the amount. The Opposite Party opted one or other reasons not to refund the deposited sum with added profit.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the double amount as offered in advertisement in case if it found that the Opposite Party is not in a position to pay back the double amount. The deposited sum Rs.20,000/- is to be given back with an interest at the rate of 18% from 07.05.2007 till the date of realization of the amount along with cost of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- by the Opposite Parties.
4. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable. Joining of the scheme by the Complainant is absolutely on her desire and personal interest. There was no assurance from the side of the Opposite Party that the entrusted sum would be doubled within a period of 2 years as far as Opposite Parties are concerned the
deposited of the amount for interest is not accommodative. The Complainant entrusted Rs.20,000/- in the scheme for purchasing lottery tickets and magazines. In this case the Opposite Party had purchased lottery tickets worth of Rs.3,600/- and magazines were sent to the party. There is no maturity period for the entrusted sum. The refund of the entrusted sum is based on first cum first served principle.
5. The smooth running of the scheme hindered by the interference of government and Court proceedings. The amount payable to the party is only after deducting the amount spent for purchasing lottery tickets. The smooth running of the scheme had set back how ever it is in running conditions, the conduction of the scheme is legally permitted. The Opposite Party is also ready to give back the entrusted sum deducting the amount spent for the purchasing of lottery tickets and magazines. The claim of the Complainant is not reasonable and it is unsustainable also. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.
6. The points in consideration are:-
Whether any deficiency in service in the non refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant?
Relief and cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Ext.A1. There is no evidence from the side of the Opposite Party. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also considered.
8. Ext.A1 is the attested photo copy of the receipts. The Complainant joined the scheme
on 07.05.2007 and the scheme is titled as Jyothis Project. The Opposite Party has no case that the amount entrusted is having a maturity period. According to them there is no clear reason why the amount entrusted is not refunded on demand. The contention of the Opposite Party is that a portion of the amount was used for purchasing a lottery tickets. In the personal evidence of the Complainant it is stated that she is not aware of the purchasing of lottery tickets. The purchase of magazines in behalf of the beneficiary is also not known to the Complainant. On the other hand the Opposite Party has not produced any documents to re- instate the contention that lottery tickets worth of Rs.3,600/- was purchased. The Complainant entered in to the scheme on the advertisement that the amount deposited would be doubled. How ever nothing as document is produced by the Complainant that the Opposite party has given such an advertisement of that the amount deposited would be doubled within the period of 2 years. It is to be considered that the deposited sum of the Complainant is not refunded either partly or as a whole. The Complainant is entitled to get back the amount deposited with interest along with cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with an interest at the rate 12% from 07.05.2007 till the date of payment. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with cost and compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only). This is to be compiled by the Opposite Parties 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:01.10.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Lissy M.J. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt No.24840.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
