MAN-JOG vs LATHA PARTHASARATHY

THIS appeal by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 21.9.1992 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 1757/91, directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the complainant with opposite party.

THE opposite party floated a scheme as ''Man-Jog Security Plans'' under which the public were invited to invest the money with the opposite party and obtain a certain sum of money every month for a particular period and therefore double the amount of deposit. The complainant under the said scheme deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the opposite party on 10.9.1987 as per Ex. P.1, the contract of agreement executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. Under the said agreement, the opposite party agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- p.m. for a period of 10 years to the complainant and thereafter, a lumpsum of Rs. 10,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 250/- p.m. from the eleventh year onwards either to the complainant or the survivor for their lifetime.

The complainant received a sum of Rs. 200/- p.m. thereafter for a period of 5 months and then the opposite party failed to abide by the terms of the agreement and to refund the deposit amount to the complainant.

THE complainant on the basis of these averments sought the refund of the amount of deposit. The opposite party filed its statement of objections and fairly admitted the averments made by the complainant. The version of the opposite party in this regard at para 15 and 16 of the statement of objections filed by the opposite party read as under:- Para 15 :- The respondent also respectfully submits that if they are due any amount they have never refused to pay the complainant. On the other hand, they have also sent number of circulars and letters requesting the members to settle the matter, one such letter copy is enclosed herewith as Annexure-''B''. Para 16 :- The respondent submits that in view of the above, when the respondent has not refused or denies payment and is ready to honour his commitments as per orders of the Hon''ble Court, the complainant may be advised to contact the respondent and settle the matter." However, the opposite party sought the complaint to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant was not a consumer under the provisions of the Act.

THE District Forum on consideration of the material placed on record by the parties held that the complainant established the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and in that view, directed the opposite party to refund the amount of deposit made by the complainant. 8.We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the parties and perused the records. We have considered the original of Ex. P.1. 9. THE opposite party floated a scheme. It is evident from the terms contained in Ex. P. 1 under the name ''Man Jog Security Plans'', under which invited from the public the investment of money under the said scheme and take the financial benefit of the said scheme. Having regard to these admitted facts, it is clear that the opposite party floated a financial scheme for the potential users. THE complainant had availed the provisions of facilities in connection with this financial scheme floated by the opposite party. Having regard to these facts, the complainant can be classified as a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the Act. That is the finding recorded by the District Forum. We do not find any infirmity in this finding recorded by the District Forum. 10. As referred above, the opposite party by its version has not denied the obtaining of the sum of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as deposit under the said finance scheme. THE opposite party has fairly admitted that he had neither refused nor denied the payment and was always ready to honour his commitments. Having regard to this specific admission made by the opposite party, the District Forum directed the opposite party to refund the amount taken by him from the complainant. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the District Forum. THEre are absolutely no grounds for us to interfere in the said finding recorded by the District Forum. 11. In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. THE appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the respondent towards costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs.