Complaint filed on: 15-04-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 23-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, <br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052<br /> C.C. NO.845/2010<br /> Dated of this 23rd day of July 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President<br /> Sri.Ganganarasaiah, Member<br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> Complainant: - <br /> H.Manjappa,<br /> 1010, 2nd (I) Road,<br /> 8th B Main road, 3rd stage,<br /> 3rd block, Basaweshwara nagar<br /> Bangalore-79<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> 1. Vice President, <br /> Maya Academy of Advanced <br /> Cinematics, No.16, <br /> 2nd floor, 100 ft Hennur ring <br /> road, Ejipura, Koramangala <br /> Bangalore-34<br /> 2. Managing Director, <br /> Maya Entertainment Limited<br /> Unit No.601, 6th floor, <br /> Inter face-11<br /> Link road of relief road,<br /> Malad (west), Mumbai-64 <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed against Op is that, the complainant is a senior citizen had thought of taking franchisee of cinematic for his unemployed son’s livelihood. So complainant approached Op 1 and Op 1 told to deposit Rs. 1.00 lakh and also told to send letter of intent to the address of OP 2 to get franchisee from them. Op 1 is branch office of Op 2. With that Op 1 assured to refund the full amount if complainant not willing to take the franchisee. Accordingly complainant sent a cheque of Rs.1.00 lakh bearing no: 17940 drawn in the SBI bank along with a letter of intent to the address of Op 2. Apart from that complainant had not entered into any agreement or contract with Op’s. As per the requirement of Op complainant hired a space to run the said activity in Malleswaram but Op 1 never come to verify the place whether it fulfill the required measurement and place even though the complainant requested several times to Op to visit and finalise the assignment of franchisee. The manager of Op firm once visited to see the hired place while he was going to his native. The same manager took the complainant in his friend’s vehicle to show other branches of them. On the second meet manager of Op1 and Ms.Aruna kumari of Op 1 told regarding the royalty of Rs.10.00 lakhs has to be deposited with Op which is non-refundable. Due to inconvenience to arrange Rs.10.00 lakhs Complainant wished to cancel the letter of intent and requested Op’s to refund the given amount i.e. Rs.1.00 lakh. The same has been requested through letter dated 15/1/2009and 30/3/2009 but Op 2 refunded Rs. 75,000/- on 25/5/2009. The complainant questioning about remaining Rs.25, 000/- to Op several times over phone and also by personal visit to Op No.1 office. Op did not refund his balance amount. Hence, complainant approached this forum that to direct Op’s to refund Rs.25, 000/- and interest @ 18% on Rs.75, 000/-and Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation.<br /> <br /> 2. Notices sent to Op’s were duly served on Op’s as per the endorsement issued by the chief post master and they were absent on the date of appearance. Hence, both OP 1 and 2 are placed exparte.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant along with the complaint has produced the letters addressed to OP’s, copy of cheque issued by the Op for RS.75,000/-, and demand letters sent to Op’s, letter of Op regarding non-refund of Rs.25,000/-. Heard the arguments of the complainant, who is in person and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant shown interest to start a franchisee study centre of Op’s for self employment of his son. He approached Op 1 to enquire about it and before giving information Op1 told him to deposit Rs 1.00 lakh, also told that if complainant wants to withdraw the transaction, the amount will be refunded to him. Accordingly complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh along with letter of intent to Op2. As per the instructions given by the Op1, complainant searched for space as required to run study centre in Malleshwaram which is highly populated and centre of the city. Though several request made by the complainant to verify the place and to finalize the transaction, Op no.1 went come to verify. After many requests finally Op 1manager came to the spot and verified it but did not comment orally or written comment regarding the space. It shows Op had agreed it as per the requirement. When complainant find some difficulty in arranging Rs.10.00lakh towards royalty which is non-refundable amount, he requested to cancel the transaction and to refund the paid amount of RS 1.00 lakh in the letter dated 15/1/2009 and 30/3/2009. Op had sent a cheque for Rs.75,000/- dated 25/5/2009 to the complainant. Even after several demands and request to refund the remaining amount. Zonal office of Op’s communicated to complainant in letter dated 8/6/2009 that remaining Rs. 25,000/- has been retained towards the expenditure incurred on the man power who visited the spot to verify the place. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant contended that once the manager visited the place which is hired for the study centre but the second time when Op came along with complainant to show the other centre which are running under the franchisee of Op’s on the cost of complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the submission of the complainant since Op has not tried to put upto any defence. Even though the Op visited twice to confirm the transaction, we are of the view that Rs. 25,000/- is more towards the expenditure and process which is retained by the Op’s. If OP had disagreed with the place he ought to have communicated to the complainant. Despite many request of complainant, Op visited and sat quietly without commenting on the observation made on the visit. Because, complainant hired the place by paying the monthly rent on it, that put him into monetary loss. Also Op returned Rs.75,000/- to the complainant after 4-5 months from the date of his intimation of cancellation.<br /> <br /> 6. From the above facts, it is clear that, the representatives of the Ops who had inspected the premises regarding its suitability did not communicate their opinion about it and they kept quite. Thereafter, when the complainant himself voluntarily approached the Ops for further processing of proposal, the Ops stated had told the complainant the requirement of deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- non-refundable deposit. The complainant finding himself unable meet that requirement addressed a letter to the Ops on 15-1-2009 expressing his inability and requested the OP to refund the deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-. But, the OP deducted Rs.25,000/- said to be towards expenditure and returned of Rs.75,000/- through cheque on 25-5-2009. Here we do not find any justification for the OP to retain the complainant’s money for more then four months, after receipt of request of the complainant to refund. The OP there is liable to pay interest on the amount. The OP expect stating had visited the premises proposed by the complainant found have not spent any money towards the expenditure on behalf of the complainant, taking into consideration from any angle the OP must have not spent more than Rs.5,000/- either towards visit of the spot or for any propose as such the OP is not justified in deducing Rs.25,000/- out of deposit amount as such the OP is liable to repay the balance of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. With this, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant is allowed. OPs are held jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 20,000/- with interest 12% per annum form 15-1-2009 till it is repaid. <br /> <br /> Ops shall also pay interest at 12% per annum on Rs.75,000/- from 15-1-2009 till 21-5-2009 to the complainant.<br /> <br /> Ops shall pay the above amounts within 30 days from date of the receipt of this order. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay costs of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />