Kerala

Wayanad

CC/70/2012

N.C. Radhamaniamma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Lis deepasthambham Project. - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2012

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/70/2012
 
1. N.C. Radhamaniamma.
Poornima House,Pulpally Post.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Lis deepasthambham Project.
PK tower, near new bus stand,Main road, Kalpetta.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
2. K.V. Chacko,
Managing Partner,LIS deepasthambham Project,Palakkal court, near shenoys, MG road,
Ernakulam.
Kerala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed against the opposite party for the refund of the deposited amount.


 

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant deposited Rs.2,500/- in the project named Deepasthambham run by the opposite parties on 04.03.2006 and a receipt was also given to the complainant. The assurance of the opposite party at the time of the depositing of the amount was that the deposited amount would be multiplied within a short span of time. The opposite parties were contacted on 30.05.2010 to make out the growth of the deposited amount and the complainant was informed them that the scheme was closed. The advertisements and assurance of the opposite parties if became true the complainant would have received Rs.1,47,000/- from the opposite party. The non refund of the deposited amount with assured profit is a deficiency in service. The complainant is to be given Rs.1,47,000/- by the opposite parties including all profits and towards cost and compensation Rs.2,500/-.


 

3. The opposite parties are declared exparte.


 

4. The Points in considerations are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the non refund of the deposited amount?

2. Relief and Cost.


 

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant. The attested copy of the receipt given to the complainant of Rs.2,500/- is the Ext.A1. The date of joining in the scheme by the complainant was on 04.03.2006. The brochure circulated by the opposite parties also explains that the deposited amount would be multiplied to 100% and it would be refunded within a few months. Ext.A2 is the photo copy of the project run by the opposite parties.


 

6. The opposite parties have not filed any version and they are set exparte. In the absence of any adverse inferences it is to be relied that the deposited amount of thecomplainant Rs.2,500/- is not refunded. It is absolutely against the assurance given by the opposite parties in the brochure. The complainant is to be compensated for the deficit in service.


 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the complainant Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) the deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of joining in the scheme till the payment of the amount. Towards cost and compensation the complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). This is to complied by the opposite parties jointly and severely within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.


 

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th May 2012.

Date of Filing:24.02.2012.

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran]
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.