issac Mathew Vs. C.P. John and Others

issac Mathew vs C.P. John and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Dec 31, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1107763

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1107763
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: P.Q. Barkath Ali President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. M.K. Abdulla Sona Member
Decided On: Dec 31, 2012
Case Number: Complaint Case No. 30 of 2010
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

issac Mathew

Respondent

C.P. John and Others

Excerpt

.....the company in november 2009. therefore he would say that he is not liable for the amount claimed in the complaint. 4. opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a joint version denying the liability. 5. the complainant was examined as pw1 and exts.a1 to a5 were marked. after cross-examination of pw1 the opposite parties remained absent. the case of the complainant is that he deposited rs.21,12,500/- by fixed deposit receipts. exts.a1 to a5 with the company of the opposite parties of which opposite parties 1 to 3 are the partners and that inspite of repeated demands they did not return the amount. exts.a1 to a5 the deposit receipts prove the case of the complainant. further opposite parties either in their version or during the cross-examination of pw1 did not dispute the said fact. after pw1 was cross-examined they remained absent. that being so the case of pw1 has to be accepted and it has to be held that he is entitled to get back the amount with interest. in the result complaint is allowed. the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay rs.21,12,500/- deposited by pw1 as per exts.a1 to a5 to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of respective exts.a1 to a5 till realization. pw1 is also entitled a compensation of rs.5 lakhs and costs of rs.10000/-if the opposite parties fails to pay the amount within one month from this day pw1 is entitled to realize the same from the opposite parties by executing this judgment.

Full Judgment

P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming refund of the amount deposited by him with the opposite party company.

2. The case of the complainant is detailed in the complaint and as he testified by him as PW1 in brief is this. He deposited Rs.21,20,500/- by 5 fixed deposits, ie Rs.2 lakhs by receipt dated:27.3.2003, Rs.3,50,000/- by fixed deposit receipt dated, January 07, 2006, Rs.5 lakhs by fixed deposit receipt dated, September 02, 2009, Rs.5,62,500/- by receipt dated, September 02, 2006 with the opposite party company. The fixed deposits were matured on December 07, 2009. Inspite of repeated demands opposite parties never returned the amount or paid the interest. Therefore the complainant prayed for an order directing the opposite parties to return the amount with interest at 12% per annum. Complainant also claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

3. The 1^st opposite party Mr.C.P.John, General Manager, C.V.Philipose and Sons, CVP Realtors Private Limited, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the partners of the said firm. The 2^nd opposite party in his version contented that he left the company in November 2009. Therefore he would say that he is not liable for the amount claimed in the complaint.

4. Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a joint version denying the liability.

5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. After cross-examination of PW1 the opposite parties remained absent. The case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.21,12,500/- by fixed deposit receipts. Exts.A1 to A5 with the company of the opposite parties of which opposite parties 1 to 3 are the partners and that inspite of repeated demands they did not return the amount. Exts.A1 to A5 the deposit receipts prove the case of the complainant. Further opposite parties either in their version or during the cross-examination of PW1 did not dispute the said fact. After PW1 was cross-examined they remained absent. That being so the case of PW1 has to be accepted and it has to be held that he is entitled to get back the amount with interest.

In the result complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.21,12,500/- deposited by PW1 as per Exts.A1 to A5 to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of respective Exts.A1 to A5 till realization. PW1 is also entitled a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and costs of Rs.10000/-If the opposite parties fails to pay the amount within one month from this day PW1 is entitled to realize the same from the opposite parties by executing this judgment.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties issac Mathew vs C.P. John and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P.Q. Barkath Ali President &Amp; the Honourable Mr. M.K. Abdu...