Kerala

Trissur

CC/17/17

Shibu.E.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sindu Bernaled

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/17
 
1. Shibu.E.P
-
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PACL India Ltd
-
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P.K.Sasi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M P Chandrakumar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SHEENA V V MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sindu Bernaled, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 30 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

By   Smt.Sheena.V.V.,Member :

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant joined in a money  deposit scheme conducted by the 3rd opposite party for a period of 5 ½  years with register No.U 1455  41988 and the date of commencement31/7/2009 and date of expiry on 31/1/2015.  The complainant was subsequently served with Registration letter dated 3/8/2009.  Opposite parties had offered that on expiry  of 5 ½ years, the complainant  will get an amount of Rs.70,920/-.  The complainant has been remitting the instalment regularly and the scheme  is over on 31/5/2015.  On expiry of the period,          the  complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and demanded the amount as agreed.  The 2nd opposite party collected claim forms and original registration letter from the complainant and told him that the claim has to be processed from the head office at Jaipur and the date of payment will be intimated to the complainant later. Thereafter there was no communication from the opposite parties and therefore the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party’s office and enquired about the payment.  But there was no payment.  The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused mental agony and much hardships to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 12/11/2015 to the opposite parties demanding payment.  But there is no amount returned so far.  Hence this complaint.

 

          2. On receiving the notice of the complaint, the opposite parties were continuously absent.  So set exparte and the case is posted for evidence.  When the case is posted for evidence, the complainant filed proof affidavit and 5 documents produced, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  Ext.P1 is the photocopy of Registration letter, Ext.P2 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.P3 is the returned lawyer notice, Ext.P4 is the postal acknowledgement card and Ext.P5 series are the original Renewal Subscription Receipts.

 

          3. We have gone through the documents and affidavit of complainant which shows the subscription and remitted amounts.  From Ext.P1, the copy of Registration letter issued by opposite parties, we could see the expiry date of agreement.  But as per the records, we could not find any amount returned by opposite parties.  There is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties.

 

          4. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties directed to return Rs.70,920/- (Rupees Seventy thousand nine hundred and twenty only) as per Ext.P1 document with 12% interest from the date of maturity i.e., 31/1/2015 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 30th day  of  June 2017.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P.K.Sasi]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. M P Chandrakumar]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SHEENA V V]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.