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
Friday the 31st day of October, 2003
C.D.No.116/2003
D.Shalini (Minor),
D/o. Devi Setty Subramanayam,
H.No. 25-625,
Sreenivasa Nagar,
Nandyal. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri P.Siva Sudharshan
-Vs-
- Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic services centre,
Near Sanjeeva Nagar gate,
Opp. Dwaraka Hotel,
Nandyal. . . Opposite party No.1 represented
By his counsel D.M.Ramachandra Reddy.
- Chairman and Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Service Ltd.
6-3-652, Kautilya
3rd floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. … Opposite party No.2 represented by his
Counsel Sri P.V Ramana Redddy.
O R DE R
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. 3, 925/- in the fixed deposit bearing No. MDR 00712/IX of with interest at 24% 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.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that on 30.7.1998 an amount of RS. 2,500/- was deposited by the complainant with the O.P.No.2 through the O.P.No.1 for a period of 36 months for the maturity value of RS.3,925/- and in token of the said deposit the opposite party No.2 issued a Certificate bearing NDR No.00712/IX in favour of the complainant accordingly. On maturity the said deposit receipt was duly discharged by complainant and sent to the opposite party No.2 on 28.7.2001 requesting for the payment of the matured amount, but the opposite party did not arrange the said amounts inspite of several demands and by his avoiding conduct and the said conduct is amounting to deficiency of service and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal as the complainant was not only deprived of the matured amount but also was put to mental agony and costs of this litigation.
Inspite 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.
The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex A.1 to Ex A.4 besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its case and the documents.
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 herentitleness to the reliefs claimed?:-
The Ex A.2 the attested xerox copy of the MDR.No.00712/IX issued on 30.7.1998 to the complainant by the opposite party receiving RS.2,500/- from the complainant envisages to pay the said amount with interest on 29.7.2001 as RS.3,925/-. Its original said to have been submitted to the opposite party by the complainant duly dis-charging it for the payment of the matured amount. The Ex A.3 covering letter and ExA.4 is the courier receipt envisages said submission. The said factum re-iterated in the sworn affidavit of the complainant was not rebutted by the opposite parties side. The Ex A.1 is the provisional receipt and the receipt for the demand draft and it envisages the payment of the deposit amount to the opposite parties by the complainant. The said factum was also 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.
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.
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 acrued benefits are not released to the depositors.
As the opposite parties has accepted the deposits of the complainant to pay the maturity amount of RS.3,925/- 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.
In the light of the above substantiated record as the privy of the complainant with the opposite partied 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.
Therefore, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount of RS. 3,925/- under the MDR.No.00712/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 with 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 31st day of October, 2003
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
