(cont..2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> <br /> of opposite parties. They did not conduct any awareness campaign as per notification. The complainant arranged qualified persons for preparing the project work of the same. And he prepared a detailed project for implementation of hotel. After a long term of about 7 years no service has been done from the part of the opposite parties. Idukki Development Authority is dissolved and the opposite parties are bound to return the amount collected from the complainant as registration fee. The complainant registered only because of the assurance put forwarded by the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for direction to pay Rs. 25,000/- for the cost of preparing the project, Rs 15,000/- for compensation for long delay in implementing schemes, return Rs. 5000/- with 18% interest from 04/10/2001 which is the registration fee.<br /> 2 The opposite parties appeared and 2nd opposite party filed written version. In the written version it is admitted that they have advertised in Medias about the project and the complainant registered with them. But I.D.A continuously communicated to the Government about the implementation of the B.O.T projects. As per the order from the Government dated 21/03/2002(No 627/2002/LSGD) a selection committee was formed for the preparation of the projects. Now also the B.O.T projects are in consideration of I.D.A. Only after registration without discussing the matter to I.D.A and without their direction, the complainant prepared projects and arranged funds. It cannot be acceptable. The first project, which the I.D.A. has thought of implementing was the Bus Terminal cum Shopping Complex Project. Advertisement was given for that. But no representation was there. The delay occured in the implementation of the project is only because of technical and legal problems, they are not deliberate. The opposite parties are not liable for the same. Funds allotted by the Government on 06/12/2006 as grand in aid for I.D.A. shows that the Government is thinking for smooth functioning of I.D.A. The projects of I.D.A. are now also in consideration and will be informed to the complainant when the time rips.The opposite parties are not liable for the cost of the project prepared by the complainant without their direction. In the advertisement itself it was specifically mentioned that the registration fee is non-refundable. So the complaint filed to refund the registration fee is not maintainable. No deficiency in service by the part of opposite parties. The complaint is only for defaming the I.D.A.<br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exhibits R1 and R2 on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> 5. The Point<br /> The complaint has been filed on the allegation that the opposite parties did not give any help for the Idukki Township Development Program project in which the complainant was registered with opposite parties on 04/10/2001. Exhibit P1 is the letter <br /> (cont..3)<br /> - 3 - <br /> <br /> written by the opposite party to the complainant on 4/10/2001 stating that 2nd opposite party received Rs. 5,000/- as registration fee. So there is no dispute about registration. Now the grievance of the complainant is that there is no help from the part of the opposite parties as per advertisement. Exhibit P2 is the letter addressed to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party on 19/10/2001 in which it is stated that “Awareness campaign will be conducted on December 2001”. But no such campaign has been conducted by the opposite parties. Exhibit P3 is another letter by 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 03/05/2005 in which it is stated that they have given advertisement for starting bus terminal project. But no such project was started by the opposite parties.They have not started any project as per advertisement given. So it is very clear that there was gross deficiency in the part of opposite parties. The complainant prepared project for the hotel business and he paid Rs.25,000/- for the same. It may be done by the complainant for the interest of his business. But the complainant ought to have consulted with the opposite parties before making a huge project. Moreover there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that the complainant prepared the project report. There for the opposite parties are not bound to make good the loss suffered by the complainant for preparing a project. The complainant mobilized funds for construction of the building as per the project and worked for the same. It is quite reasonable to believe that as an entrepreneur, the complainant may consulted with several persons and worked a lot for the same and mobilised funds. The opposite parties made a long delay for implementing the schemes for I.D.A and now also it is pending. It is the deficiency in service made by the opposite parties. So we think that the opposite parties are bound to pay a reasonable compensation for the deficiency in service which we would limit to Rs.5,000/-. A selection committee was formed by the opposite parties under the concerned department Secretary for the recognition of projects. Exhibits R1 and R2 are the copy of orders of the State Government dated 30/03/2007 and 21.3.2007 respectively. Exhibit R1 says that the I.D.A is wound up; with effect from 31/03/2007 A.N. The assets and liabilities of the I.D.A shall be handed over to the District Panchayath Idukki. As per the advertisement, the registration fee is non-refundable. But the I.D.A is merged in District Panchayath and there is a long delay in implementing the project. If such a long delay is made on implementing new schemes after registration and spending money, nobody will come forward with money and share business with I.D.A or any other development authority. It discourages young entrepreneurs to play a role in the development of our city and nation.  So we think that it is fit to return the registration fee to the complainant with an interest of 12% per annum from 04/10/2001, and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of petition. The complainant is entitled to get the registration fee Rs.5,000/- returned with 12% interest from 04/10/2001.<br /> In the result we pass the following relief in favour of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the Registration Fee of Rs.5,000 returned with 12% interest from 04/10/2001 along with Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1,500 (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) as cost of the petition. <br /> <br /> - 4 -<br /> The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the same within one month, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest of 12% per annum from the date of default.<br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of March 2008<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> Sd/- <br /> <br /> SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) <br /> <br /> APPENDIX <br /> <br /> Depositions<br /> On the side of Complainant<br /> <br /> PW1 - Baby Issac<br /> <br /> On the side of Opposite Parties <br /> <br /> DW1 - E.M.Thomas<br /> Exhibits<br /> On the side of Complainant<br /> <br /> Ext.P1 - Letter No.T/380/2000/IDA dated 4.10.2001 issued by the 2nd Opposite<br /> Party to the Complainant<br /> Ext.P2 - Letter No.T/380/2000/IDA dated 19.10.2001 issued by the 2nd Opposite <br /> Party to the Complainat<br /> Ext.P3 - Letter No.T/560/2003/IDA dated 3.05.32005 issued by the 2nd Opposite <br /> Party to the Complainant<br /> On the side of Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> Ext.R1 - Photocopy of G.O(MS) No.98/07/LSGD dated 30.3.2007 of Government of Kerala<br /> Ext.R2 - Photocopy of G.O(Rt) No.627/2002/LSGD dated 21.03.2002 of Government of Kerala