CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/07/2012
CC /132/2012
G. Swaminathan,
S/o. Govinda Mannadiar, - Complainant
Puthan house, Puthussery,
Vilayodi Post, Chittur,
Palakkad, Kerala.
( By Adv. Raghudas. S.G)
Vs
1.The Managing Trustee
LIS Deepasthambham Project,
# 39/76 D1, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Building,
Mahakavi G. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin, Kerala – 682 011
2. LIS Deepasthambham Project
# 39/76 D1, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Building,
Mahakavi G. Road, Ernakulam,
Cochin, Kerala – 682 011
(Reptd By 1st opposite party)
(By Adv. Rajesh.M)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:-
Complainant deposited Rs. 75,000/- with the opposite parties in the project named “ LIS Deepasthambham Project”. As per the scheme opposite parties has to return twice the amount entrusted within a period of 6 years. The said amount was deposited on 20/07/2005 vide receipt No. 61354. Opposite parties made the complainant believe that the project runs as per Govt. norms. Later it was understood that the scheme does not have any Govt. sanction. Though demanded several times opposite parties failed to return the assured amount even after the maturity also. Though a lawyer notice was caused on 2/05/2012, neither reply was sent by opposite parties nor amount returned. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for order directing opposite parties to pay the assured amount with 12 % interest along with compensation and cost.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending the following. That the complaint is barred by limitation. That the opposite parties did not give any assurance to return double the entrusted amount. According to opposite parties, as per the scheme the benefit of purchase commission will be distributed as and when, to what extend the lottery purchase commission is available and that too strictly according to the seniority of the members joining the scheme. It is further stated that the opposite party firm has not committed any maturity period or any fixed time to give the additional benefit of commission. The opposite party firm was accepting money in advance for purchasing lottery tickets and magazines on behalf of members joining the scheme and the major portion of the commission amount availing out of these purchase is sparing to the members in such a way that the “ first come first” basis will get the benefit of “Commission” to their entrusted amount for which the opposite party firm have not committed any period or time stipulation.
Further states that the allegation that, the Complainant had deposited some amount with opposite party firm is false and incorrect. It is submitted that the total amount of Rs. 75,000/- of the complainant was not “ deposited” but only entrusted in the LIS Deepasthambham Project of the opposite party firm for supplying Government lottery tickets and magazines. It is submitted that, the opposite party firm did not accept any deposit from anybody including the complainant. The complainants has entrusted the amount to the opposite party firm for availing the service rendered by the opposite party firm by purchasing lottery tickets and issuing college magazine to its members who joined in the scheme. The expiry period as mentioned in the complaint is imaginary and is based on the wrong assumptions of the complainant. The opposite party is 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. Out of Rs. 75,000/- received from the complainant, the opposite party firm had purchased lottery tickets worth Rs. 42,000/- and issued the magazine. Thus, the entire amount was intended to be spent on behalf of the complainant. In addition to the above, opposite party firm have offered an additional benefit of “ Commission” to the amount entrusted with them by sharing the purchase commission they receive from the purchase of lottery and magazines on 2 conditions : (a) It will be paid only when we get sufficient purchase commission on the purchase of lottery and magazines and (b) it will be paid strictly according to the seniority of the members joining in the scheme.
Further as per the order of the Hon'ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, the entire bank accounts of opposite parties stands freezed. Moreover as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it was directed to refund the amount collected less cost of lottery tickets and magazines. Hence complainant is entitled for the said amount only. Opposite parties prays for dismissal of complaint with cost.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext. A1 to A2 series were marked. Opposite parties has not filed any chief affidavit. No documentary evidence on their part.
Issues for consideration :-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issues No :1
According to opposite parties complainant has joined the scheme in the year 2005 and the complaint now filed is barred by limitation. According to the complainant the assurance was to return the amount in double with in a period of 6 years. Opposite parties has contented in the version that the scheme does not have any maturity period or any fixed time to give the addl. benefit of commission. If that be the case, we are of the view that complaint is not barred by limitation.
Issues 2 &3
Complainant entrusted an amount of Rs. 75,000/- with opposite parties is born out by Ext. A1 receipt dt. 20/07/05. According to the complainant assurance was to return twice the entrusted amount within 6 years ie, on 20/07/11. But according to opposite parties, it was a lottery purchase scheme where in the benefit of purchase commission will be distributed to the members. Both parties has not produced the terms and conditions of the scheme. But complainant has led evidence by way of affidavit. Opposite parties has not filed any affidavit. It is well established law that mere pleadings in the version not supported by chief affidavit is no evidence. Hence the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the view of the above discussion we are of the view that the non return of the assured amount by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.
In the result, Complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand only) along with 12 % interest from 20/07/11 to the date of order and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall be carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of December, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of receipt of LIS Deepasthambham Project issued on 20/07/05.
Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice with postal receipts and Acknowledgement cards dtd. 02/05/12.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees one thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
