D.O.F:06/05/2022

                                                                                                     D.O.O:03/03/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.No.80/2022

Dated this, the 3^rd day of March 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER

Joseph Mathai,

Kurishunkal, Vayaravalli,                                            : Complainant

Periya P.O,

Kasaragod- 671316

                                                  And

1. Sam Sreevastava (MD)

Istrusione Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd,

5^th Floor Anirudh Complex,

Adivasi Hostel, Deputy Para,

Ranchi- 834001,

Jharkhand

2. Joshy Mathew,

Senior Operations Manager,

Istrusione Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd,

Regus, 3^rd Floor,

Shyamala Tower, No.1,                                              : Opposite Parties

36 Arkot Road,

Saligraam – 600093

Chennai

3. Fr. Thomas Mannamparambil,

(OCD), Mandapam P.O,

Kasaragod Dt- 671326

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G    : MEMBER

          The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that due to the influence of Opposite Party No:3, the complainant booked Maruthi Alto LX1 and transferred an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the opposite parties company account.  As a part of community development programme of GSSF in India Opposite Party offered to provide two wheelers, 4 wheeler computer housing etc and the scheme had been carried out in various parts of the country.  The Opposite Party No:3 offered to deliver the vehicle on 25/09/2020.But so far the vehicle is not delivered.  The complainant contacted Opposite Parties many times through phone and mail.  But so far neither the amount nor the vehicle is delivered.  Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.

2.     Notice to Opposite Party No:1 and 2 returned as ‘addressee left’.  Thereafter complainant filed email address of Opposite Parties.  Notice served to Opposite Party No: 1and 3, but they remained absent.  Name of Opposite Parties called absent set exparte.  Notice of Opposite Party No: 2 returned stating not found.

3.     The complainant filed chief affidavit.  Ext A1 to A4 marked.  The issues raised for consideration are:-

a) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?

b) If so what is the relief?

4.     Believing the assurance given by Opposite Party No: 3 Fr. Thomas Mannamparabil, the complainant booked Maruthi Alto LXI and  transferred  an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the Opposite Parties company account.  But Opposite Party failed to deliver the vehicle in time.  Thereafter the complainant made many attempts to get either the vehicle or get refund of the amount.  As Opposite Parties are not turned up, only the email communicationsbetween the complaint and company is produced.  Copy of e-mails produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A3 series.

5.     According to Opposite parties G.S.S.F is an international trust registered in US and engaged in charity operation in many parts of the Globe including India through its registered office at Ranchi.  They claims that several women empowerment program such as providing, 4 wheelers, 2 wheelers, computer housing etc had been covered out.

6.     Ext A1 is the account statement of the complainant, Ext A2 is a letter from the H.O to the investors, Ext A3 series are e-mail communications, Ext A4 is the vehicle booking form.  Ext A4 proves the booking of the vehicle and Ext A1 payment transaction of Rs. 1,76,000/-through NEFT to complainant account .  Believing the assurance of Opposite Party No:3 Fr. Thomas Mannan Parambil the complainant attracted to this scheme and transferred the amount to opposite party’s company account.  The opposite Party failed to deliver the vehicle on 25/09/2020.  Even after years of waiting complainant filed this complaint.  Even though Opposite parties offered to refund the amount, so far the amount is not transferred. The complainant produced all documents to prove his case.  In the absence of contra evidence complaints case stand proved.  After receiving funds from the complaint the Opposite parties failed to deliver the vehicle after collecting advance amount from Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The Opposite Parties failed to give a proper explanation for the delay.  The inordinate delay either in delivering the vehicle or refund of the collected advance amount deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, due to which the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony.

          After perusing the affidavit and documents we are of the view that refund of the amount with compensation and cost is very essential in this case. 

          Hence complaint is allowed directing Opposite parties to refund Rs.1,75,000/- with compensation and cost.  The Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing opposite parties to refund Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)

          The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of copy of this judgment.

     Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1:  Account statement of the complainant

A2:  Letter from the H.O

A3 series are e-mail communication

A4:  Vehicle  booking form

     Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/