IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 23.09.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.232/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.N.Pushpanandan, 1. Sumangi Vijayan,
Chirayil Thekkethil, Zigzag, Anglo Acadamy,
Kallumel.P.O, Alappuzha-3.
Mavelikkara,
Alappuzha District. 2. T.N.Vijayan, Zigzag,
Zigzag, Anglo Acadamy,
Alappuzha-3.
(By Adv.S.Sreekanthan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant on 2nd July 2010 deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and on 2nd October 2007 an amount of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand only) with the opposite parties in the Kuttanadu Central School. The opposite parties issued 'Investment Certificates' to this effect. The opposite parties had offered 15% interest and induced the complainant to deposit the amount. But the opposite parties did not pay the interest as promised. The complainant's repeated requests and demands went in vain. The opposite parties have been making assurance after assurance only to flout them into the air. The opposite parties have not paid back the deposited amount or interest till date. The complainant sustained mental agony and monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this forum for compensation and other relief.
1. Notice was sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant deposited the amount in the investment scheme of the school wherein the 2nd opposite party is its director. The 1st opposite party has no any sort of link or association with the said scheme. The depositors are entitled to the profit if any achieved by the said scheme in addition to the offered interest, and as such they are liable to put up with the loss whatsoever the scheme sustains, the opposite parties fervently argue. The opposite parties further contend that during the concluding period of 2006, so many financial institutions collapsed, and being scared at this, the depositors of the opposite party collectively demanded back their deposits. Several depositors were paid back the amount. With the result, the opposite parties’ scheme also fell down. The relief sought for in the complaint are beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complaint is barred by limitation as well. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties assert.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl and the documents Exbts Al and A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties except the complainant being cross-examined no evidence either oral or documental was adduced.
3. Taking into account the contentions of the parties the questions come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the 1st opposite party is a necessary party to the complaint?
(b) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as sought for?
4. The factum of deposit or amount so deposited is appeared to have not been denied or disputed. Seemingly, the opposite parties have no case that the deposit amount was given back to the complainant. The contentions of the opposite parties significantly revolve round the reasons for its failure to disburse the interest and the deposit amount to the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the 1st opposite party was incorporated unnecessarily. The 1st opposite party has no link with the material scheme of deposit in any manner. As to this contention, it is worthy of notice that the opposite party did not let in any evidence that support or substantiate the said contention. Needless to mention, mere making statements do not take the place of proof. The complainant case is that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.l,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) with the opposite parties. The complainant have been making hard endeavor to get back the deposit amount and the interest. The opposite parties have not effected payment of the deposited amount till the filing of the instant complaint. In this context, we are of the strong view that the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation does not merit acceptance. As we have already observed, the opposite parties have not challenged the deposit of the amount nor the complainant's contention that the same or the interest was not disbursed. More over the complainant produced Exbts Al and A2 which indubitably affirm the complainant case. Needless to say, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to relief, we hold.
In the light of the facts and findings supra, we direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant the deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) together with 12% interest from the date of the filing of the instant complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties and their assets are jointly and severally liable for the said amount. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30days of date of this order.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - N.Pushpanandan (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the Investment Certificate date of issue 03.10.2005
Ext. A2 - The copy of the Investment Certificate date of issue 03.07.2006
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
