TRUSTEES Vs. ROBERT CYRIL DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondents/complainants had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants had purchased 12000 units on the face value @ 10/ - per unit under ˜CANTRIPLE+ scheme in 1991. According to the complainant they were attracted by the Scheme as it assured three times return on the investment, assuring a minimum return of 14.9% p.a. As per the complainant, it was indicated that the investment was akin to a FD in the Canara Bank who was the principal trustee of the scheme. These units were to mature on 16.6.99 on expiry of 90 months from the date of allotment. On 15.7.99, when the respondent/complainant was paid a sum of Rs.2, 15,640/ - instead of Rs.4,80,000/ - as envisaged under the Scheme, the matter was taken up with the petitioner. When the matter was not getting sorted out between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.38,450/ - with interest thereon @14.9% from 16.6.99 till the date of payment alongwith compensation and cost of Rs.6000/ -. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) IN this case notice was issued to both the parties. While the petitioner is represented through the counsel, the respondents showing their inability to engage a lawyer, sent their ˜written -representation to be treated as their arguments.