By   Smt.Sheena.V.V.,   Member :

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant had joined 2 schemes conducted by opposite parties.  The two scheme Nos. are  U145379934 and U145379935 respectively and it was stated on 29/1/2008 and ends on 29/12/2013.  As per the scheme, the complainant has remitted Rs.550/- each every month and after the end of the scheme the complainant will receive  an amount remitted plus bonus.  The complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.79,200/- with the opposite parties. The complainant had remitted the entire instalments without making any default and submitted all the documents with 2^nd opposite party on 22/1/2014.  Even after the repeated demands the opposite parties have not paid any amount so far.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          2. On receiving the notice of complaint,  opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed the version.  In the version they stated that the opposite parties does not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received from is an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot.  Opposite party company never promised to pay any money to the complainant what they promised is plot of land and if the complainant is  not keen to take his plot in that case  they will arrange  for sale of his plot and the complainant will receive only estimated party realizable value.  And also they stated in the version that  Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has freeze the bank accounts and property/title deeds  of the “PACL Ltd” in case Crime No.R.C.BD1/2014/E/0004.  So, the refunding of the amount is not possible and deficiency in service or cause of action not arises against the opposite parties.

          3. But after filing the version of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a petition No.IA.708/16 for rejecting the version submitted for opposite parties on the ground of the version filed is not complete and specific.  Designation of the signee is not stamped and no details of the person who submitted the version is stated in t.  So, the interim application No.IA.708/16 is allowed by the Forum and the version filed by the opposite parties stands rejected.  The opposite parties had either filed any further version   curing the defects or represent before the Forum from 5/7/2016 onwards.

          4. When the case is posted for complainant’s evidence, the complainant filed proof  affidavit and two documents produced, which are marked as Exts.P1 and P2 series.  Ext.P1 is the acknowledgement for receiving the scheme documents from the complainant and Ext.P2 series are the receipts for making payment.  From these documents, we could convince that the complainant is eligible to get the amount of Rs.79,200/-.  There is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed  to return Rs.79,200/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand and two hundred only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of maturity i.e., 29/12/2013 till realization and cost Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30^th day  of  June      2017.