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

Thursday the 10^th day of March, 2005

C.D.No. 1/2005

Dwaram Pulla Reddy,

10-68, Upstairs, Main road, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.                                         

                                                                 . . . Complainant represented by his

                                                                         counsel Sri P. Siva Sudarshan.

          -Vs-

1. Managing Director, Medinova Diagnostic Services Centre,

Near Sanjeeva Nagar gate, Opp. Dwaraka Hotel, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.       

                                                            . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by

1. Managing Director,                             his counsel Sri D.M. Ramachandra

Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,                                          Reddy.

6-3-652, Kautilya , 3^rd floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.                                    

     . .  . Opposite party.

O R D E R

(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member

1.       This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs. 7,850/- with 24% interest from the date of the complaint till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of this case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- from 1.12.1999 to 30.11.2002 with the opposite party No.2 for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,850/-.  On expiry of the maturity period the complainant submitted maturity bond to opposite party No.2 on 10.12.2002 and requested to pay matured amount, inspite of several demands and personal approaches the opposite party No.2 did not refund the said due amount.  The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party No.2 constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim for matured amount of Rs.7,850/-, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint.

3.       In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.2 neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any defense and thereby remained exparte and opposite party No.1 appeared before this Forum through their standing counsel and filed denial written version denying all the material averments made in the complaint and further submits the opposite party No.1 is not all concerned with the alleged MDR issued to the complainant, as it is only a Franchise Center of opposite party No.2 and is paying royalty under agreement dt 15.3.1994 and it is not bind with the payments or commitments of opposite party No.1 with other parties, therefore, seeks for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No.1 with costs of Rs.3,000/-.  The opposite party No.1 in support of its case filed sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence.

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 & A.2 besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of the complaint averments.

5.       Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant had made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought:?

6.       The Ex A.1 is the xerox copy of Membership Deposit Receipt No. 01003/XIII dt 1.12.1999. It envisages the receipt of an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 1.12.1999 by the opposite party No.2 assuring the payment of Rs.7,850/- as the maturity amount payable on 30.11.2002.  the Ex A.2 is the acknowledgment receipt dt 10.12.2002 issued by opposite party No.2 for receipt Ex A.1 which was matured on 30.11.2002 for Rs.7,850/- and requests further time for payment of said matured amount.  The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 and A.2 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit averments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party No.2 and hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant.

7.       When a Company or 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 Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in 1993 (3) C.P.R. page 345.

8.       When the among under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of not honoring 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 reported in I( 2003) C.P.J. page 260.

9.       In the present case also the opposite party’s 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 kept 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 at 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 the incurred expenditure of the complainant for having trips to the opposite party seeking refund of the amount 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 party No.2 to pay to the complainant the matured amount of Rs.7,850/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within a month of the receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 10^th day of March, 2005.

PRESIDENT

            MEMBER                                                                                           MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                                        For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex A.1 Is the xerox copy of MDR No. 01003/XIII dt 1.12.1999 an amount of

           Rs.5,000/- by the opposite party No.2.

Ex A.2. Is the acknowledgement of receipt dt 10.12.2002 issued by opposite party

            No.2 for receipt of Ex A.1.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties :Nil

                                                                                Sd/-

                Sd/-                                                 PRESIDENT                               sd/-

            MEMBER                                                                                           MEMBER