CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P.President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. CC.No.263/09 Saturday, the day of 27th, February, 2010.
Petitioner Lalu Joseph Madaparammpath house Uzhavoor. P.O. PIN-686634. (Adv.Benny Joseph) Vs. Opposite parties. 1. Proprietor Suryadhanasree Chittees Kuravilangadu branch Kottayam. 2. Alice Collection Agent Suryadhanasree, Kuravilangadu branch. 3. Lincy.C.L. Office staff Suryadhanasree Kuravilangadu branch. O R D E R Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant had joined the weekly chitty scheme conducted by the opposite parties. He had joined the scheme under Rs.100/- for 50 weeks. The opposite parties offered to him as Rs.5500 along with bonus. But after completing the instalments the complainant approached the opposite party they had given only Rs.5300/-. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant joined the scheme on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite party. But the opposite party has not perform the offers. Hence this complaint. -2- The notices was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The present complaint is not come under the purview of the consumer protection act. The complaint had joined the chitty for Rs.5000/- and he had received the amount with bonus Rs.300/-. Accordingly the complaint get Rs.5300/-eventhough he was a defaulter in remitting the instalments. If the complaint had remitted the instalments without any default he could get Rs.500/- as bonus. Hence he was not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not refund the entire chitty amount with bonus to him. According to him the opposite party had offered Rs.5,500/- with bonus. But the opposite party had only given Rs.5300/- to the complainant. The opposite party had taken a contention that the complainant was a defaulter of remitting the instalments and so he was not entitled to get the entire bonus. According to the opposite party they had given Rs.300/- to the complainant as bonus. Admittedly the remitted amount was given to the complainant. The only disputes is with regards to the offered bonus amount. As far as the opposite party is concern they had given Rs.300/- to the complainant as bonus. We have no reasons to dis-believe the sworn proof affidavit of the complainant and A1 series. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the offered bonus amount was Rs.500/-. Hence the case of the complainant is believable as the offered bonus amount was Rs.500/-. So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
-3- In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.500/- as offered bonus and pay Rs.1500/- as compensation for inconvinences and pay Rs.1000/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant. Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX Documents produced by complainant. A1series are the receipts.
Documents by the opposite parties. B1 is the statement of accounts showing remittance.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent.
Kgr/5 copies.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
