STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/16/594 RAMARAI PRESENT ADDRESS - ... ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus RAGHAVAN NAIR PRESENT ADDRESS - ... ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 16/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.594/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED: 16.06.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.03/2012 on the files of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

RamaRai, H.No. B.P.05/424, Guru Kripa, Pilankatta, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod (by Advs. Ajith S. Nair & R. Harikumar)

Vs RESPONDENTS:

1. Raghavan Nair, S/o Chandu Nair, Kanathil House, Vidyanagar P.O., Kasaragod

2. Kasaragod Gramina Super Market Ltd., Vrindavan Complex, Cherkala, P.O. Chengala, Kasaragod

3. Rajesh Alva, S/o Krishna Alva, B/P 10/596, P.O. Perdala, Kasargod

4. Ajith Kumar, Asad, S/o Gananathan, Padappu House, Shankarampady P.O., Kasaragod – 671 541

5. Anil Kumar, S/o Damodaran K.P., Inyaram Nivas, Kaikamba, P.O., Uppala, Kasaragod – 671 322

6. Lalitha, D/o Kunhikannan, Theruvath, Near BFS Co-operative Society, Kundamkuzhy P.O., Kasaragod – 671 541

7. Muhammed Asraf Kunjathur, S/o Ibrahim Kunjathur Muhammed, Ashraf Manzil, Near K.P. Building, P.O. Kunjathur, Kasaragod – 671

321

8. Panduranga Bhat, S/o Achutha Bhat, H.No. C.P.7/89, Kundingila House, Kumbdaje, Yethadka P.O., Kasaragod – 671 557

9. S. Damodara Patali, S/o Battya Patali, H.No. DP-175 (3/196), Samethadka House, Delampady P.O., Kasaragod – 671 543

10.

Vinodkumar, S/o Late Raghavan Nair, Kanathil House, Vidya Nagar P.O., Kasaragode – 671 123

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER

th

The appellant is the 8 opposite party in C.C.No.03/2012 on the files of the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (the District Commission for short).

2. On 21.07.2016 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 jointly and severally to refund Rs.45,000/-(Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation, to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.

3. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:

st The 1 opposite party is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

nd st The 2 opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1 opposite party. The opposite st parties 3 to 10 are directly involved in the management of the 1 opposite party.

nd rd

4. On 12.06.2010 the 2 opposite party along with the 3 opposite party one Krishna Prasad, C.N. Balan, Bhaskaran T.V., Kumaran K.V., Shijin Joseph, Kadar K.N. and Vinod Kumar D. had visited the house of the complainant and represented that they are the st managing directors of the 1 opposite party and they do receive deposits from the public in order to start super market at different places in Kasaragod at different locations. They also promised 20% interest per annum for the investments, which will be paid after the completion of one year. They further promised that they will refund the deposit amount nd whenever the depositor wishes to withdraw their deposit. Believing the words of the 2 opposite party and others, the complainant entrusted Rs.45,000/- to his son by name Vinod st Kumar A. and asked him to deposit the said amount with the 1 opposite party.

5. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited in the name of the complainant. At the time of depositing the amount, all the opposite parties and the persons who visited the nd house of the complainant were present. The 2 opposite party received the amount and issued receipt on the same day itself. After elapsing one year, the complainant demanded for the refund of the amount al