By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint filed against the opposite parties alleging the deficiency in service for non refund of the deposited amount in the scheme named LIS Deepasthambham.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The opposite parties were extensively advertised to media like Newspaper, Television etc.. that they are launching a new scheme of deposit in which the deposit amount will be doubled within a stipulated period. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and enquired the scheme the opposite party No.1 assured that the amount will be doubled within a few period. Believing the opposite parties the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in her name as per Receipt No.169547 dated 02.02.2006 and Rs.3,125/- as per Receipt No.32079 dated 06.06.2005 in the LIS Deepasthambham Project of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The opposite parties assured that the amount deposited would be multiplied 100% within a few months through lottery commission. But the opposite parties failed to fulfill their promise. On 14.10.2012 the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to enquire about the growth of deposited amount, he informed that the project has been closed. Opposite parties failed to comply the promise and not returned the promised amount. Subsequently the opposite parties closed their branch office at Kalpetta. No intimation was given to the complainant with regard to the closure of the project by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the non refund of the deposited amount with offered benefit is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So complainant praying for a direction to refund of the money deposited with all offered benefits of the scheme together with cost and compensation.
3. Notice being served opposite parties appeared and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service.
4. In opposite parties version they stated that the time limit for filing this complaint is already being over and the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the opposite parties didn't given any assurance to return double of the amount paid to the complainant within a period. The opposite party's firm was accepting money in advance for purchasing lottery tickets and Magazines on behalf of members joining in the scheme. The opposite party firm have not fixed any period of time stipulation. More over that they are ready to give back the entrusted amount after deducting the cost of lottery tickets and Magazines supplied to the complainant along with lottery prize if any. They are also contented that the complainant has not entitled to claim any interest. There is no stipulation in the contract between complainant and opposite parties to pay interest on the amount entrusted in the project. The relief sought for in the complaint are unsustainable and not liable to be granted. So he prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. On considering the complaint, affidavit and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Point No.1:- The evidence in this case consist of testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 documents. Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney. Ext.A2 is the copy of Receipt No.217636 dated 18.04.2006. Ext.A3 is the copy of Receipt No.169547 dated 02.02.2006 and Ext.A4 is the copy of Receipt No.32079 dated 06.06.2005. Nothing else is produced by the complainant to prove the offers in the scheme such as lottery prize, double of deposit amount etc... As per the complaint, complainant approached the opposite parties several times to get back the deposited amount with promised benefits of the scheme. But opposite parties failed to discharge the promised amount. The contention raised by the opposite parties such as limitation and jurisdiction aspects need more proof. No evidence produced from the part of the opposite parties to defend their case. Any way the non refund of the deposited amount is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. We are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of the deposited amount along with reasonable interest. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the compliant is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.31,875/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five) only along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards cost and compensation. The opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to comply this Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 16th day of July 2013.
Date of Filing: 21.12.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Pathrose. Power of Attorney Holder of Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Power of Attorney.
A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:18.04.2006.
A3. Copy of Receipt. dt:02.02.2006.
A4. Copy of Receipt. dt:06.06.2005.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
