By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.6,78,191/- as refund of deposit to the Complainant along with 12% interest per annum and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The 2^nd Opposite Party approached the husband of the 1^st Complainant and father of 2^nd Complainant and 3^rd Complainant Prof. George to deposit some amount in Your Charitable Education Trust and promised that the amount with 12% interest will be returned on demand. Believing the words of 2^nd Opposite party, Prof. George deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the Opposite party's trust and got a receipt for the same numbered as 34 dated 21.06.2011. On 24.04.2013, Prof. George passed away, the Complainants demanded back the deposit from the Opposite Parties. The Complainants are the legal heirs of Prof. George. The Opposite parties did not give back amount and so the Complainants send notice to Opposite parties on 01.03.2014. The last date offered by Opposite parties to pay back the amount was 31.03.2014. But the Opposite parties did not pay back. Again registered notice was send on 04.04.2011 which was returned unaccepted on 15.04.2014. So the act of Opposite Party's amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. The Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite parties contended that Prof. T.V. George given a written request to join in the trust on 17.06.2011 and his request was discussed in the trust and thereafter he was admitted to trust as trustee. Subsequently by decision of all trustees, the trust decided to purchase land at Alathoor Village in Palakkad and all the trustee decided to take the required amount by deposits or loans etc as per the rules of the trust. Accordingly Prof. T.V George also deposited Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 5 years without interest and profit as per letter dated 11.07.2011. All other allegations are denied by the Opposite Parties. The Complainants are not entitled to get back the amount as per the allegations. The allegation that there is no registered trust in the name and style 'your charitable trust' is also false. The trust is in the name and style of 'your charitable and educational trust' and was registered with sub- registrar, Sulthan Bathery as deed No.36/14 of SRO Sulthan Bathery on 16.03.2011 and was reconstited by including Prof. T.V George as trustee wide document No.107/12 of SRO, Akkikkavu. The 2^nd Opposite Party was acted only as per the decision of Board of trustees including T.V George. The trust could not pay the required amount to purchase the land as stated above. The trust is trying to get back the advance amount by settlement or due process of law. The complainant is pre-mature and so not maintainable. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of

Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A9 and confronted document is marked as Ext.B1, B2, B3 and B4. The Opposite Parties also filed proof affidavit and Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 and Exts.B5 to B9 are marked. Ext.A1 is the original receipt issued by the Opposite parties to the Complainant's father Prof. T.V. George on depositing Rs.5,00,000/- in the trust. Ext.A2 is the death certificate of Prof. T.V George. Ext.A3 is the legal heir certificate. Ext.A4 is the demand notice issued by the Opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.A5 is the reply given by the Public Information Officer on a petition by the petitioner seeking information regarding the registration of Opposite Party's trust. Ext.A6 is also a reply in a petition under RTI Act, Ext.A9 is the petition under RTI Act, Ext.B1 is the original of request given by the Complainant's father Prof. T.V. George to the Chairman of your charitable and Education trust for permitting to join as a member in the trust. Ext.B2 is the copy of reconstituted Trust Deed, Ext.B3 is the memo for depositing Rs.5,00,000/- by Prof. T.V. George in the Trust. Ext.B4 is the copy of minutes of the meeting held on 23.07.2011 by the Chairman and Members. Ext.B5 is the copy of meeting held on 28.08.2011. Ext.B6 to 9 are the relevent trust deed documents.  Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the Opposite party's trust which shows that Prof. T.V George deposited Rs.5,00,000/- in the trust and it is admitted by the Opposite Parties. Ext.B2 shows that the Trust is reconstituted upon Ext.B1 request by Prof. T.V George. The case of complainants is that as per Ext.A1 deposit, they are entitled to get back the amount from the Trust. Ext.B3 is an assurance letter issued by Prof. T.V. George to the trust stating that the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is for a period of 5 years 0% interest and will not demand back the money deposited before the expiry of 5 years. The deposit is on 21.06.2011 and the Complaint is filed on 15.05.2014. Hence the case of Opposite Parties is that the Complaint is premature. The deposit will mature only on 21.06.2016. Anyhow, now the deposited amount is matured and the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission remanded back the case for trial and ordered the appellant to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the Forum. The deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is ordered to release to the petitioner also. At the time of hearing, the Opposite Parties submitted that they are ready to pay the balance amount also. On going through Ext.B3 document, it is seen that the Complainant's father gave consent to the Chairman and Managing Trustee of your Charitable and Educational Trust, Wayanad to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him to the Trust for 5 years at 0% interest and will demand back the amount after the expiry of 5 years or can re-deposit. But here, the depositor is no more and the legal heirs are not willing to continue the deposit. Now the situation changed and the trust cannot as a matter of right to withhold the amount of a Trust member who is no more. The Ext.B3 document gives the right to the legal heirs to claim back the amount. It is pertinent to note that the trust did not act upon to fulfill any of the object as it is intended. If the trust fulfill any one of the objects as stated in the trust deed, all assets and deposits and properties will be dealt with as per the provision of Trust deed. But the opposite parties have no case that the trust fulfilled any of the objects. The purchase of property by the trust is also not completed and not get registered in the name of trust. On an over all evaluation of the evidences and records, the Forum found that the Complainants are entitled to get back the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- from the trust. Since the Opposite parties failed to give back the amount to the legal heirs, the Forum found deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainants, the Complainants are entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh) only to the Complainants out of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited as per Ext.A1 document. The Opposite Parties already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only before the Forum and is released to the Complainants. The Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the above documents to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant's are entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of December 2016.

Date of Filing:15.05.2014.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Boby George. Business.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Muhammed Ashraf. Business.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Receipt. dt:21.06.2011.

A2. Copy of Death Certificate.

A3. Copy of Legal Heir Certificate. dt:09.09.2013.

A4. Copy of Letter. dt:01.04.2014.

A5. Copy of Letter. dt:04.03.2014.

A6. Copy of Letter. dt:06.03.2014.

A7. Copy of Letter. dt:04.03.2014.

A8. Copy of Letter. dt:05.03.2014.

A9. Copy of Application dt:18.01.2014.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Letter. dt:17.06.2011.

B2. Copy of Reconstituted Trust Deed of Your Charitable & Educational Trust.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:11.07.2011.

B4. Copy of Minutes of Meeting held on 23.07.2011.

B5. Copy of Minutes of Meeting held on 28.08.2011.

B6. Copy of Minutes of Meeting held on 14.11.2011.

B7. Copy of Minutes of Meeting held on 26.06.2012.

B8. Brochure.

B9. Copy of Deed of Public Charitable and Educational Trust.