G M VASANTHRAJ Vs. MAXWORTH ORCHARDS (INDIA) LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant s case is that believing the representations of the 1st opposite party for investing in one of the schemes as Pondicherry Mango Scheme , he invested in the said scheme. He has paid the entire sum of Rs. 5,35,500/ - as per its commitment. The complainant was led to believe that the project has been going on. Therefore, he went there in person to see the progress of the project. But, the opposite parties were evasive in showing the project site and ultimately in the month of July, 1997 accompanying the representative of the 1st opposite party, the complainant went to the village where the project was supposed to be located. The representative of the opposite party was not even able to identify the project site. There was only barren land with no developmental activities. Thus, the complainant was cheated. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for refund of the sums paid and the third opposite party promised to refund the amount. But instead of the same, they sent a letter dated 21.8.1997. On receipt of the same, the complainant sent a reply insisting upon the refund of the amount. Subsequent to the above letter, the opposite parties have agreed to issue post -dated cheques, but it was not done. But on 15.10.1997 a letter was written seeking for power of attorney to be granted to the 1st opposite party for sale of land. Apprehending the ulterior motives, the complainant immediately sent reply clarifying his stand. The third opposite party after reply pleaded the inability of the 1st opposite party to refund the amounts and instead, offered a property at Porur belonging to the 2nd opposite party. As the complainant had no other alternative to safeguard his interest, the complainant was willing to accept the proposal of exchange. The 1st opposite party acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 6,56,177/ - was due to the complainant towards repayment of the principal and interest. The statement of accounts acknowledging liability was handed over to the 2nd opposite party with a requisition to the 2nd opposite party to provide House No. 43 -A in Porur Phase I developed by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party requesting them to allot House No. 43 -A, Porur, Phase I developed by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party issued a credit note for a sum of Rs. 5,35,500/ - instead of Rs. 6,56,177/ -. In order to put an end to the harassment, the complainant chose to pay the balance amounts for the registration of plots and remitted a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - for the purpose of registration to the 2nd opposite party. In spite of having received money, the 2nd opposite party is trying to cheat the complainant. The complainant has been thus frustrated. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties besides unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant prays for the refund of sum of Rs. 7,36,177/ - along with interest at 18% plus a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards compensation and costs.

(2.) THE opposite parties 1 to 4 filed their versions. But they did not choose to participate in the inquiry.

(3.) THE documents produced by the complainant which have been marked as Ex. A12 to Ex. A24 would amply establish the complainant s case how he was duped and cheated by the opposite parties. The complainant has parted with more than a sum of Rs. 5,35,500/ - lured by their advertisements promising to make him a Zamindhar. Though they made promises and received monies, the project never took off. What the complainant saw there was only barren land without any development work. When the complainant repeatedly asked the opposite parties for the return of the amount, conveniently the 1st opposite party pointed out stating that the 2nd opposite party would provide the house site instead at Porur, Phase I promoted by the 2nd opposite party, who apparently is the sister concern of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party for his part received a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - promising him to register and sell a plot in Phase I, Porur, but they did not do anything. Thus, the complainant has in all parted with a sum of Rs. 5,35,500/ - + a sum of Rs. 80,000/ -. He has neither been given a plot or land or a house. This scheme never took off. But the opposite parties took off with all the monies of the complainant. Thus, there is definite deficiency in service, malpractice and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties are, therefore, bound to repay the sum of Rs. 5,35,500/ - along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of sale namely 25.11.1996 and the sum of Rs. 80,000/ - with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint. Their action in taking money and not doing anything would have definitely put the complainant to a lot of mental agony, tension and hardship. On this ground, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as compensation.