Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 21st day of June, 2005
C.D.No. 72/2005
G.Madhava Swamy,
S/o. Nagi Reddy,
R/o. D.No. 25/106,
Sanjeeva Nagar,
Nandyal. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri J.Swamy Reddy.
-Vs-
1. Chairman & Managing Director,
Adala Raghava Reddy,
Medinova Diagnostic services ltd,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
3rd floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
2.Basu Takur,
Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
3rd floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. … Opposite party.
3.The Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
Franchisee,
M.S.R.Hospital Private Ltd,
25/179, Station Road,
Nandyal. … Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P.Act,1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs.7,250/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation andRs.1,000/- as costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has deposited under “Medninova Gold Card Scheme” floated by the O.Ps No.1 and 2 with an amount of Rs.5,000/- from 12.12.2000 to 11.12.2003 with the opposite parties No.1&2 through the opposite party No.3 for refundable matured amount of Rs.7,250/- vide Membership Deposit Receipt no.06944/P-R,dt.12.12.2000. The complainant sent the original membership deposit Receipt to the opposite party No.1 for realization of the maturity amount and the same was due by him on 11.12.2003 i.e the date of the maturity. But either the opposite party No.1 or O.P No.2 even after the expiry of the period till 28.3.2005 i.e the date of filing of the complaint did not pay the amount payable by them. The complainant is entitled for the further interest from the date of maturity i.e 11.12.2003. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite parties constrain the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim of the maturity amount of Rs.7,250/-, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and grant Rs.1,000/- as costs of this complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties neither appeared before the Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defense and thereby remained exparte.
4. While such is so with the opposite parties the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A.1 besides to his sworn-affidavit in re-iteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought?:-
6. The Ex.A.1is an attested Xerox copy of M.D.R.No.06944/P-R,dt.12.12.2000 wherein the original of it sent to the opposite party No.1 for realization of the maturity amount and the same was due by him on the date of maturity i.e on 11.12.2003. It envisages the receipt of an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 12.12.2000 by the opposite party No.1 assuring the payment of Rs.7,250/- as the maturity amount payable on 11.12.2003. The facts so envisaged in Ex.A.1 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn-affidavit averments in re-iteration of its case or neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties and hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant.
7. When a Company of Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest or attractive sums, it is a service and the depositor is a Consumer as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressasl Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in 1993(3) C.P.R page 345.
8. When the amount under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the Depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of not honouring the said commitment, amounts to deficiency and the Financial Institution is liable to refund the accrued amount with 12% interest as per the decision of Hon’ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited Vs Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard report in I (2003) C.P.J page 260.
9. In the present case also the opposite parties firm inviting the public deposits on a promise of the payment of matured amount on a tenure of 3 years from the date of deposit did not keep up the said commitment to the complainant by avoiding the payment of the matured amount. Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant consumer depositor and thereby the grievances of the complainant are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite party for refund of the accrued matured amount with interest at 12 % per annum from the date of the maturity and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and costs of Rs. 1,000/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite party to the Forum for redressal.
10. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the matured amount of Rs. 7,250/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of opposite parties and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 21st day of June 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 is an attested Xerox copy of -Nil-
MDR No. 08680/VIIIR for maturity
value Rs. 7,850/-.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
