IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Presiding Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2014.
C.C.No.29/2012
D.O.F. 02.02.2012
D.O.O.19.08.2014
C.C.No.37/2012
D.O.F. 13.02.2012
D.O.O.19.08.2014
C.C.No.38/2012 &
D.O.F. 13.02.2012
D.O.O.19.08.2014
C.C.No.39/2012
D.O.F. 13.02.2012
D.O.O.19.08.2014
C.C.No.29/2012
Reeshma K.C.
D/o. K.C. Mohanan : Complainant
Reji Nivas, Vellachal,
Makreri P.O., Kannur – 670 622
(Rep. by Adv. A.K. Sajith Kumar)
1. The Managing Partner
DLS Jyothis Project, 40/8942 C
2nd Floor, CRH Complex
MG Road, Ernakulam – 35
(Rep. by Adv. K. Gopakumar)
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
Jyothis
Alfa Chambers, Nr.Sannidhan Tourist Home
Kannur – 2
C.C.No.37/2012
K.C. Mohanan
S/o. Raman Nair
Kayakkal Chandroth : Complainant
Mamba P.O.
Kannur – 670 611
(Rep. by Adv. A.K. Sajith Kumar)
1. The Managing Partner
LIS (Regd) Deepasthambham Project
Palakkal Court
MG Road, Ernakulam – 35
(Rep. by Adv. K. Gopakumar)
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
LIS (Regd)
Alfa Chambers, Nr.Sannidhan Tourist Home
Kannur – 2
C.C.No.38/2012
Rejeesh K.C.
S/o. K.C. Mohanan
Reji Nivas, Vellachal, : Complainant
Makreri P.O.
Kannur – 670622
(Rep. by Adv. A.K. Sajith Kumar)
1. The Managing Partner
DLS Jyothis Project, 40/8942 C
2nd Floor, CRH Complex
MG Road, Ernakulam – 35
(Rep. by Adv. K. Gopakumar)
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
Jyothis
Alfa Chambers, Nr.Sannidhan Tourist Home
Kannur – 2
C.C.No.39/2012
K. Chandramathi,
W/o. K.C. Mohanan
Reji Nivas, Vellachal, : Complainant
Makreri P.O.
Kannur – 670622
(Rep. by Adv. A.K. Sajith Kumar)
1. The Managing Partner
DLS Jyothis Project, 40/8942 C
2nd Floor, CRH Complex
MG Road, Ernakulam – 35
(Rep. by Adv. K. Gopakumar)
2. The Manager : Opposite Parties
Jyothis
Alfa Chambers, Nr.Sannidhan Tourist Home
Kannur – 2
COMMON ORDER
Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member
These four complaints are filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OP) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and for directing the OP to pay double of the amount which complainants have paid to them and to pay Rs.20000 as compensation together with the cost of this litigation.
The above four complaints are similar and the complainants belong to one family. Opposite party is same in all four complaints and common facts are as follows:
The complainant in CC No. 37/2012 is the father of the complainants in CC No. 38/2012 and CC No. 29/2012 and husband of the complainant in CC No.39/2012. LIS is a partnership firm registered under the partnership Act. They started a new scheme by name ‘DLS Jyothis Project’ under the sponsorship of the opposite parties which is registered under the partnership Act. As per the terms and conditions any person who is ready to pay certain amount can become beneficiary of Jyothis project. The OP made wide advertisement in media to the effect that the amount deposited in the project would be doubled and including lottery commission. The complainant and his family members joined in LIS Deepasthambham to became beneficiary of Jyothis project on 14.06.2007 at Kannur. On believing the words of OP, the complainant in CC.No.37/2012 deposited Rs.50,000 and Rs.40,000 by the complainant in C.C.No.29/2012, Rs.50,000 by the complainant in C.C. No.38/2012 and 79,000 by the complainant in C.C. No. 29/2012. The opposite parties have issued beneficiary certificate for each complainants. On the due date i.e., on 07.05.2009 complainants approached to the OP and requested for refund of the deposit and increments thereof. But OP did not even promise to pay back the deposits and accretions thereon. The OP did not care the complainant’s demand and put forth lame excuse. The OP have not repaid the amount even after repeated demands. They have committed breach of trust. The complainants allege that the act of the OP constitutes deficiency of service on their part and prays for an order directing the OP to return the deposit amount with reasonable interest, compensation and cost of this proceedings. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaints, Forum sent notice to both parties. The OP entered in appearance and filed version. The OP contended that the time limit for filing this complaint is already over and complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. So the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint. Thereafter on 25.04.2013 OPs filed memo before the Forum stating that the matter has been settled between parties out of court whereby the OP has agreed to return back the amount deposited by the complainant in all cases and to the part payment OP produced DD for Rs.35,000 for the complainant in C.C.No.29/2012 and Rs.40,000 each for complainants in C.C.No.37/2012, C.C.No.38/2012 and C.C.No.39/2012. Thereafter OP did not pay the balance amount for the complainant. The Forum granted several chances for OP to pay balance amount, but OP failed to use the chance given by the Forum. Thereafter complaint was posted for evidence. Complainant filed joint trail petition which was allowed since the complainant are from the same family and opposite parties are same and issues are same and the evidence is almost similar. C.C.No.37/2012 was treated as leading case in which evidence was taken.
On considering the complaint the following issues were framed.
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
- Where the consumer is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost.
Evidence consists of chief affidavit filed by the complainant in CC No. 37/2012 for all other complaints as PW1 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant.
Issues No.1 to 3 :
It is admitted that the complainant in CC No.37/2012 paid a total amount of Rs.50,000 to the OP. Exhibits in CC.No.37/2012 Ext.A1 series are Beneficiary certificates, Exhibits in CC No.29/2012 Ext A2 series are Beneficiary certificates. Exhibits in CC No.38/2012 Ext.A3 series are beneficiary certificates. Exhibits in CC No.39/2012 Ext.A4 series are beneficiary certificates. Ext.A5 is the advertisement made in newspaper and Ext.A6 is the Brochure of the OP.
The case of the complainant in all these cases are that the OP have advertised medias like newspaper that they are launching a new scheme of deposit by which the deposit amount will be doubled within a few period. Believing the advertisement and assurance given by the OP , the complainant in C.C.No.37/2012 had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000 as per the Ext.A1 series. The complainant in C.C.No.29/2012 had deposited a sum of Rs.40,000 as per Ext.A2. The complainant in C.C.No.38/2012 had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000 as per the Ext.A3 series and complainant in C.C.No.39/2012 had deposited Rs.79,000 as per the Ext.A4. As per the complaints, the complainants approached the OP on maturity and on several occasions to get back the deposited amount with promised benefit of the scheme. But the OP failed to refund the promised amount but sought times for payment. The Forum found that there is no limitation in this case. So the contentions of OP will not lie. Thereafter OP filed memo before the Forum stating that the matter has been settled between the parties out of court whereby OP has agreed to return back the amount deposited by the complainant in all cases and towards the part payment OP produced DD for Rs.4000 each for all the complainants except in C.C.No.29/2012, OP produced DD for Rs.35,000 before the Forum. Thereafter OP did not pay the balance amount thereof. When the opposite parties going on refusing demand for refund the complainant have no other option but to approach this court for redressal. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The deposit of amount by the complainant is not denied by the OP. So relying the evidence of the complainants, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. So complainants are entitled to get back the balance deposited amount together with reasonable interest and cost and compensation. So issues No.1 to 3 are decided accordingly.
In the result complaints are partly allowed.
In CC No.37/2012 opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment for the complainant.
In CC No.29/2012 opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment for the complainant.
In CC No.38/2012 opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment for the complainant.
In CC No.39/2012 opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.39,000 (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of joining the scheme till the full payment for the complainant.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost and compensation to all complainants. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
Presiding Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainants
A1 series: Beneficiary Certificates in C.C.No.37/2012.
A2 series: Beneficiary Certificates in C.C.No.29/2012.
A3 series: Beneficiary Certificates in C.C.No.38/2012.
A4 series: Beneficiary Certificates in C.C.No.39/2012.
A5 . Advertisement in newspaper.
A6. Brochure.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainants
PW1. Complainant in C.C.No.37/2012.
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
