Date of filing : 17-03-2011
Date of order : 29 -11-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 65/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of November 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Siju Jose, } Complainant
S/o. Jose,
R/at Vayalil House, thenoore,
Chittarickal Village and Kadumeni.Po,
Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod. Dt
(Adv. Santhosh Thomas, Hosdurg)
1. The Managing Trustee, } Opposite parties
LIS DEEPASTAMBHAM PROJECT,
Administrative Office, 3rd Floor,
Palackal Court, Near Shenoy’s Theatre,
M.G.Road, Ernakulam. 682 035.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIS Deepastambham Project,
Kottacherry, Kanhangad.671315
(Ops 1 &2 Adv. K. Sethumadhavan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Shorn of all other averments and allegations crux of the complaint is that the complainant subscribed 17 units of the LIS deepastambham project floated by opposite parties for `10,625/- believing the opposite parties attractive offer that the deposit will be doubled within 100 weeks. But as promised the opposite parties did not return the amount as offered. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The amount is not invested as alleged by the complainant. It was an entrustment to purchase Government of Kerala Lottery tickets. Under the scheme floated by opposite parties firm any person can became a member by entrusting a certain sum of money as advance. The agreement between the opposite parties firm and the complainant was to purchase lottery tickets and collage magazines over a certain period of time on behalf of them with the money entrusted in the opposite parties firm. In addition to the above opposite parties firm have offered and additional benefit of ‘commission’ to the amount entrusted by them by sharing purchase commission they receive from the purchase of lottery and magazines. But the benefit stated above was to be paid to the members only on 2 conditions (1) it will be paid only when they get sufficient purchase commission on the purchase of lottery and magazines and it will be paid strictly according to the seniority of the members joining in the scheme. The opposite parties has not committed any maturity period or any fixed time to give the additional benefit stated above. The purchasing of lottery tickets and magazines were stopped since the Additional CJM Court, Ernakulam directed to freeze the entire bank accounts. Karnataka Police also registered criminal cases and the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has directed to refund the amount collected from the members after deducting the cost of lottery tickets and magazines supplied to the members from the amount entrusted by them. Hence complainant is only entitled for the return of the amount as directed by the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka. The opposite parties are ready to give back the entrusted amount after deducting the cost of lottery tickets and magazines supplied to the complainant along with the lottery prize if any. Complainant is not entitled for any interest.
3. After filing the version complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case and Exts. A1 to A3 marked. No evidence adduced on the side of opposite parties to substantiate their contentions.
4. The issues to be settled in this case are:
1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed?
4) Order as to costs?
5. Issue No.1 Limitation
The opposite parties contention that the amount is deposited in their firm on 04-06-2005 and hence the complaint is time barred. This contention is not sustainable. Ext.A1 receipt issued by opposite parties to complainant evidencing the payment of `10,625/- in their firm. It only shows the joining date No maturity date is mentioned in the receipt. The opposite parties further submits that the agreement between opposite parties firm and the complainant was to purchase lottery tickets and college magazines over a certain period of time on behalf of them with money entrusted with them. But to substantiate this contention no document is produced by the opposite parties. So the payment made by the complainant can only be considered as a deposit without fixing a maturity date. In case of deposits the limitation starts only firm the date of maturity if such a date is fixed as maturity date. Therefore we hold that the claim of the complaint is not barred by any limitation.
6. Issue No.2 & 3 are considered together for the sake of brevity.
The case of the complainant is that he deposited the amount as per Ext.A1 receipt believing the attractive offer that the depositor get double amount within 100 weeks. In support of his claim he is relying on a printed letter issued by the Chairman LIS group. In which it is stated that Members who joined from 04-06-2005 onwards will get double gain on seniority basis and the first commission list will be published on 18-04-2007. It is further stated in the letter that double benefit will be calculated including the prizes procured through lottery though on former occasions it was given as an extra benefit.
7. This would goes to prove that the opposite parties has offered double amount for the deposits. But it no where shows any time stipulation of 100 weeks for multiplication as stated by the complainant.
8. The opposite parties also silent above the modus operandi of the scheme. It is an impossible task to refund double amount by selling and distributing the lottery prizes and it’s commission.
9. The offer to repay the amount in double within 100 weeks vide advertisements squarely amounts to unfair trade practice.
10. Relief & costs
The complainant is not entitled for double amount as claimed. However, he is entitled to get the amount he deposited with interest from the date of deposit with costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund the amount ` 10,625/- with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit i.e. 04-06-2005 till payment together with a cost of `2000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Original receiptDeeoasthambham Project for an amount of `10,625/- receipt No.31074
A2. 06-01-2011 copy of lawyer notice.
A3. Postal acknowledgment card.
PW1. Sijin Jose.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
