CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 18th day of April 2013.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 07/12/2012
CC /221/2012
M. Sudevan,
S/o. Muthu, Kizhakkumpuram house, - Complainant
Kattussery Post, Alathur,
Palakkad – 678 542
( 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 - Oppsite Parties
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. M. Rajesh)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:-
Complainant based on the offers made by the opposite parties through the advertisements given in media joined “LIS DEEPASHTHAMBHAM PROJECT”, wherein an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited. It was agreed to return the amount in double after the maturity period. Complainant joined the project on 10/06/2005. Opposite parties also made believe the complainant that the project runs as per Govt. norms. Later it was understood that the project has no Govt. sanction. Though demanded, opposite parties failed to return the assured amount. Original certificate issued was retained by the opposite parties and not returned to the complainant. Lawyer notice dtd. 19/10/2012 was caused to the opposite parties, but the same was returned with endorsement refused. The non compliance of the terms and conditions of the project and failure to return the amount is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for the assured amount with interest and compensation.
Though opposite parties entered appearance, neither version nor affidavit was filed.
The evidence adduced consist of the chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1 to A3 documents.
Issues for consideration are :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issues 1&2
Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- in the ' DEEPASHTHAMBHAM PROJECT ' run by opposite parties on 10/06/2005 is evident from Ext.A1. Terms and Conditions of the project not produced by the complainant. Ext.A2 lawyer notice evidences the fact that complainant joined the said scheme depositing an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. No contradictory evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Hence the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In view of the above stated circumstances we are of the view that complaint be allowed.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lakh only) with 12% interest from 10/06/2012 to the date of order along with 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 carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of April 2013.
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 10/06/2005.
Ext.A2 - Copy of lawyer notice with postal receipts and Acknowledgement cards dtd. 19/10/2012.
Ext. A3 – Returned lawyer notice (original)
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.
Forwarded by / By order
Senior Superintendent
Fair copy on: 30/04/2013
Despatched on:
