KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 510/2010

JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     :  JUDICIAL  MEMBER             

APPELLANTS

1.      M/s. LIS(Regd.)- Administrative Office,

         Palackal Court, M.G. Road, Ernakulam-35

2.      P.J. Thomas, Branch Manager,

     Lispinaga Road,

     Kalpatta

                                      ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri Bimal V.S. & Others)

                                            Vs

RESPONDENT

        Stephan Saju,

        Pulikottil House,

        Sulthan Bathery P.O.

       ,Kaippanchery.

JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2011

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

          This appeal is filed against the order dtd. 28.6.2010 of CDRF, Wayanad in CC 22/10.  The appellants are the opposite parties who are under orders to pay Rs. 51,250/- with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of deposit till realization after deducting Rs. 4,000/- from the above mentioned amount along with  Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that he had deposited Rs. 51,250/- with the opposite parties on the assurance that the amount deposited would be doubled yearly.  After 4 years i.e., in June 2009 he approached the O.Ps for getting the assured amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- then the 2^nd opposite party informed that the amount would be disbursed on 20.12.2009 and on that date the complainant approached the opposite parties.  But they evade from their liability.  Hence he filed complaint before the Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 8, 8,20,000/- with 12% interest along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs.   

          The opposite parties filed version and denied the alleged assurance to pay back double the amount after 1 year to the complainant.  According to them the amount so received from the complainant was for availing service rendered by the first opposite party i.e., for  purchasing Lottery tickets and for issuing College Magazines to those members who joined in the scheme and they purchased lottery tickets and issued  College Magazines for Rs. 28,700/- and has agreed to give Purchase Commission.  Moreover on account of freezing the bank accounts of the opposite parties they could not continue the business.  They further submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court passed interim orders directing the appellant firm to return the amount after deducting the amount spent by them towards the purchase of lottery tickets and the issuance of magazine to the depositors, pleading that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties   prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

          The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued for the position that the order of the Forum below is unsustainable on the ground that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to the effect that the appellants/opposite parties have assured to pay back double the amount after 1 year.   It is also submitted that out of Rs. 51,250/- which  was received  from the complainant Rs. 28,700/-  was used for purchasing lottery tickets and for the issuance of College Magazines.    He has also submitted that there was a case before the  additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and the entire bank accounts of the opposite parties had directed to freeze.  Hence they could not continue the business.  Thus the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the contract between the complainant and the firm became frustrated and so no benefits can be claimed by the members.  He argued that there were interim orders by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court directing the appellant firm to return the amount to the depositors after deducting the amount spent towards the purchase of lottery tickets and the magazines.  Pleading that there was no deficiency of service on their part, he prayed for admitting the appeal.

          The case of the appellant is that the complainant has entrusted the amounts to the first opposite party for availing service rendered by the first opposite party ie, for purchasing lottery tickets and for issuing college magazines.   However the deposit of Rs. 51,250/- is admitted by the appellants.  The Forum below has ordered for refund of the said amount with interest @ 15%  per annum from  the date of deposit till the date of payment after deducting Rs. 4,000/- along with costs of Rs. 500/-.   Though the appellants would argue that the amounts entrusted by the respondent/complainant is not returnable with interest, we find that the opposite parties had miserably failed  to prove their case that the amount entrusted by them is not refundable with interest or that the same is entrusted only for purchasing  lottery tickets and for issuing college magazines who joined in the scheme.  Though it is submitted that there were interim orders by the Karnataka High court, no such orders are seen produced by the appellants to substantiate the said contentions.  The complainant produced Exts. A1 to A3 to substantiate his case and the Forum below had passed the order appreciating the evidence adduced before it. 

           No cogent evidence was adduced by the appellants/opposite parties to substantiate their case.  We find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Forum below.  Hence there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          In the result this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

                   VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

                M.V. VISWANATHAN                    :    JUDICIAL MEMBER

ST

.