D.o.F:08/1/2014

D.o.O:20/10/2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.12/14

                  Dated this, the 20^th    day of October 2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

M.C.Thomas, S/o Chako,

 Muthuparakunnel, Malom, Darkkas,                               : Complainant

(in person)

1. The Managing Trustee,LIS Project office,

Palackal Court,M.G.Road , Ernakulam.682035       : Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

2 John Mathew, Manager, Jyothis Project,

Room No.A 101, Jazzel Centre, Puthiyakotta

Kanhangad. Now R/at Vellarikund Po,

Near Police station.

(Adv.M.Narayanan,Hosdurg)

                                                                   ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

The complainant in brief is as follows;

  Complainant joined the LIS Deepasthabam Project conducted by the opposite parties and subscribed  different  units worth total  Rs.95010/- in the year 2005.  On due date the complainant was contacted the opposite parties they  told that the company,  the LIS project  faced some legal problems due to the intervention of govt. authorities  the opposite party suggested the complainant to transfer the maturity amount to  the Jyothis  Project which was also conducted by the Ist opposite party and  agreed to refund with  100%  growth within  50 weeks  and further the  Ist opposite party undertakes to pay the matured  amount with gifts .  Complainant agreed the above suggestion of Ist opposite party and transferred  the above  amount  to Jyothis Project.  But on attaining the maturity date opposite party failed to pay the deposited amount as well as the balance amount.  The opposite party evaded the payment in one pretext or the  other.  The opposite party told the complainant that there is a case is pending before the  Hon’ble  High Court  and the property belongs to opposite party are attached by the court and they are ready to pay the amount after the disposal of the case.  Believing the words of opposite party the complainant was waiting  for the disposal of the case of opposite party but now the complaint came to know that the opposite party is settling the claims of depositors.  Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.

2.   Ist opposite party served notice and appeared through counsel and filed their version.  In the version Ist  opposite party taken a specific contention that the complaint is barred by limitation.  Notice to 2^nd opposite party returned unserved with an endorsement door closed.  Complainant filed memo stating that he is not seeking any  relief from  2^nd opposite party.  After filing the version the case was taken up in the adalat as per the  written request of opposite party.  Most of the cases of similar nature were settled in the adalat and in this case the opposite party told that the complainants deposit is not seen in the computer.  But the Ist opposite party has no case that they paid the amount to the complainant.  If the computer system of Ist opposite party is defective, who is responsible for ?.

   Complainant filed proof affidavit  and Exts.A1 to A10 marked.

3.   Here  the  opposite parties specific contention is that the complaint is barred by limitation.  While hearing the complaint it is the specific case of the complainant that till the date of filing the complaint, the complainant approached the opposite parties each and every month and as per the undertaking given  by the opposite party he has not filed the complaint earlier.  According to  complainant last date of promise made by him was in the year 2012 and the  cause of  action arose in the year 2012 only and the complaint is filed within time.

4.   Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the opposite parties might have promised the payment in the year 2012.  Moreover they are settling similar  case in the adalath.  Due to the  defect in the computer system of the opposite parties the complainant’s case was not settled.  Hence we allow the  complaint.

  Therefore complaint is allowed  directing the 1^St opposite party  to  refund Rs.95010/-  - the amount deposited  by the complainant with interest @10% per annum from the date of complaint  till payment and  Ist opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Time for  compliance is  30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 Exts:

A1- Beneficiary certificate

A2 to A5-Project Membership Receipts

A6 to A9- Statement of approval

A10-Brochure of OP.1

Sd/                                                                                              Sd/                                                            Sd/

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

eva

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT