DATE OF FILING- 6.9.2012
DATE OF DISPOSAL-23.7.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
The complainant alleges that he was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest in Forest Department,Govt.of Odisha and retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.2001. The complainant further alleges that under persuasion by Opposite Party No.2 and 3, he invested a sum of Rs.1,05,651/- on 14.7.2008 under a scheme floated by Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 alloted an ID bearing No.ID847427. Under the scheme the complainant was to receive regular money back with no risk. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 dispatched final account statement along with a cheque No.381871 dt.8.8.2008 for Rs.29,201/- . Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 dispatched four number of cheques i.e. Ch No.527832 dt.19.9.2008 for Rs.563/-,Ch.No.857300 dt. 22.10.2008 for Rs.329/-, Ch.No.560560 dt.25.11.2008 for Rs.196/- and Ch.No.951198 dt. 15.5.2009 for Rs.177/-. Against the total investment of Rs.1,05,651/-, the Opposite Party No.1 paid only Rs.30,466/- and the balance amount of Rs.75,185/- was still remained with the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant several time requested for payment of the balance amount but the Opposite Party No.1 did not respond to his requests. Even a legal notice served upon Opposite Party No.1 dt.5.6.2012 was also unfruitful.. Finding no way out, the complainant has come up with this case with a prayer to get refund of Rs.75,185/- along with interest from 16..5.2008 and compensation of Rs.20,000/-and cost of Rs.3,000/- from Opposite Parties.
2- The Opposite Party No.1 put in their appearance through advocate and filed its written version wherein it is raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of jurisdiction and cause of action. However, it is submitted that in order to collect donations started making payments by way of incentives to those who collect donations. As per the scheme, incentive was payable on one’s own donation made by an individual. It is further submitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,05,651/- as donation and a receipt of donation was issued to him. In this regard, a TDS certification of exemption U/s 80G of Income Tax Act was also issued to the complainant. Since the organization of the Opposite Party No.1 is a charitable which works for the welfare of the blind through out the country, they are entitled for tax exemption. It is further submitted that the receipt of cheques amounting to Rs.30,466/- as alleged by the complainant is an incentive paid to him towards donation collected either individually or as a part of team as per incentive scheme. It is ,therefore, submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that there is no question for refund of the amount since the complainant has already got income-tax exemption during the year he had donated the amount and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part to compensate the complainant as claimed by him. It is prayed that since the petition of complaint does not hold any merit it is liable for dismissal.
3- The notice of the Forum returned unserved from Opposite Party No.2 due to want of correct address and subsequently no steps taken by the complainant to furnish correct address. The notice was sufficient upon Opposite Party No.3 and despite receipt of notice, Opposite Party No.3 remained absent and, therefore, he was set ex-parte vide order dt.9.1.2014.
4- On the date of hearing learned counsel for the complainant was present and despite several opportunities, the Opposite Party No.1 has neither filed written notes of arguments nor participated on hearing of the case. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the written version and documents filed by Opposite Party No.1. We have also gone through the written notes of arguments filed by the complainant. It is not disputed that the Opposite Party has received Rs.1,05,651/- from the complainant. It is also not disputed that the Opposite Party No.1 has paid Rs.30,466/- to the complainant on several occasions through cheques. Therefore, before going to the merit of the case, it is to be clarified as to whether the amount deposited by the complainant was an investment and the amount so received from Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant was profit out of his investment or not?
5- While going through the documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1 we find that National Federation of Blind is a charitable organization registered under Societies Act bearing Registration No.4866. After going through the brochure filed on record it reveals that this organization works for the welfare and cause of blinds in the society. The duplicate receipt filed by the Opposite Party No.1 reveals that the amount of Rs.1,05,651/- as received by Opposite Party No.1 is towards donation. It is also clear from the letter No.DIT(E)/2007-2008/N-47A/u/s 80G/67 dt.12.7.2007 of the Director of Income Tax, Delhi that the donation paid by the complainant is exempted under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act,1961.
6- From the above documents filed on record, we are clear that the amount paid by the complainant is towards donation to the charitable organization and that amount was exempted for the purpose of income-tax. Moreover, as per the scheme of deposit, the Opposite Party No.1 was awarding incentives to each individuals or team members to motivate worthy donors as a gesture of good goodwill and for good collection of donations. From the above facts, we are clear that the amount deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party No.1 was towards donation to get exemption of income-tax. The amount so received through cheques by the complainant to the tune of Rs.39,466/- was towards his incentives for collection and deposit of donation on his behalf. The donation paid by any individual can not be regarded as a consumer of the charitable organization to claim for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. In the instant case at hand, the complainant can not also be regarded as a consumer of Opposite Party No.1 to claim for refund of his deposited amount.
7- In the result, we hold that the present consumer complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 23rd day of July,2014.
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu) (Smt.M.Pradhan) (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)