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., Membe
Friday 7th day of November, 2003
C.D.No.108/2003
Sivapuram Jagannatham,
S/o. Veera Narayana,
D.No.25/208-A,
Sanjeeva Nagar.
Nandyal,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri J.Swamy Reddy.
-Vs-
- Adala Reghava Reddy,
Chairmand And Managing Director,
Medinova Diaghnostic Service Ltd,
6-3-652Kowtilya,
3rd Floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad . . . Opposite party No.1 represented
is counsel Sri P.V.Ramana Reddy
- Basu Takur,
Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Service Ltd.
6-3-652, Kautilya
3rd floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad.
… Opposite party
O R DE R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under section 11&12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay the complainant the maturity amount of RS.7, 850/- in the fixed deposit bearing No. MDR 01090/IX with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the maturity till realization, RS.5, 000/- towards mental agony and RS.1, 000/- towards the costs of the litigation and such other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 03.7.1998 an amount of RS.5, 000/- was deposited by the complainant with the O.P.No.1 for a period of 36 months i.e 02.7.2001 for the maturity value of RS.7, 850/- and in token of the said deposit the opposite party No.1 issued a Certificate bearing NDR No.01090/IX in favour of the complainant accordingly. On maturity of the said deposit, the complainant requested the opposite parties several times for payment of the matured amount of RS.7, 850/- but the opposite parties did not choose to pay the amount. Finally on 14.1.2003, the complainant got issued legal notice through his advocate demanding the payment of the matured amount of RS. 7,850/- with interest at 18% P.A from 03.7.2001 and enclosed the Xerox copy of the membership deposit receipt along with the notice under register post with Acknowledgement due and this avoiding conduct of the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency of service and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal as the complainant was not only deprived of matured amount but also put the mental agony and costs of this litigation.
3. In-spite of service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties neither turned up to the proceedings nor made any contest to the complainant’s case dis-owning their liability.
4. The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex A.1 to Ex A.3 besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its case and the documents.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties in defaulting the payment of the matured amount and there by his entitleness to the reliefs claimed?:-
6. The Ex A.1 the original membership deposit receipt MDR.No.01090/IX issued on 03.7.1998 to the complainant by the opposite party receiving RS.5, 000/- from the complainant envisages to pay the said amount with interest on 2.7.2001 as RS.7, 850/-. The Ex A.2 office copy of legal notice dated 14.01.2003 issued by complainant is counsel to opposite party No.1 and ExA.3 is the acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 in receipt of the Ex A.2. The said factum re-iterated in the sworn affidavit of the complainant was not rebutted by the opposite parties side. The above material clearly establishes the privy between the complainant and the opposite parties as to the said deposit amount.
7. When the Company or a Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the depositor is a consumer as per the decision of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in Neela Vasanth Rajee V/S Among Industries and another reported in 1993 (3) C.P.R page 345.
8. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchayani Savings Investments (India ) Limited V/S Vatsala Baba Saheb Gaiquad Reported in I(2003) CPJ 260 holds the Financial Institutions deficient in its service in not honouring the Commitments when amounts under various deposits with the accrued benefits are not released to the depositors.
9. As the opposite parties has accepted the deposits of the complainant to pay the maturity amount of RS.7, 850/- on the date of the maturity they are under the service obligation to honour their commitment and when they avoid for honouring their commitment by releasing the accrued amounts to the depositor their conduct in the light of the above decisions is amounting to deficiency of service towards the depositor.
10. In the light of the above substantiated record as the privy of the complainant with the opposite parties and the liability of the opposite parties towards the complainant and the opposite parties deficiency of service at their non responsive conduct as is made out there appears every bonafidies in the cause of action and claim of the complainant.
11. Therefore, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount of RS.7, 850/- under the MDR.No.01090/IX with an interest at 9% per annum from the date of the maturity, RS.1, 000/- towards mental agony and RS.1, 000/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the said default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 7th day of November, 2003
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
