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
Wednesday the 22nd day of September, 2004
C.D.No.71/2004
S.Siva Sai Kumar,
S/o S.Subramanyam,
Bank Street,
Panyam,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainants represented by their counsel
Sri.K.Lokeshwara Reddy.
-Vs-
- M/s. Medinova Diagnostic Services Limited,
Represented by is Managing Partner or Director,
Regd.Office, 6-3-652,
Kautilya 3rd Floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
- M/s. Medinova Diagnostic Services Limited,
M.R.S. Hospital,
Represented by its Manager,
R.S.Road,
Nandyal,
Kurnool District. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.7,250/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- from 28-11-2000 to 27-11-2003 with the opposite party for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,250/- under Member ship deposit No.00958/P. On expiry of the maturity period and the surrender of deposit receipt duly discharged, in-spite of several demands and personal approaches the opposite party did not refund the said due amount. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party as amounting to deficiency of service constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with nay defence and thereby remained exparte.
4. While such is so with the opposite party the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration 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 party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought.
6. The E.A1 is the Membership attested Xerox copy 00958/P dated 28-11-2000 deposit receipt. It envisages the receipt of an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 28-11-2000 by the opposite party assuring the payment of R.7,250/- as the maturity amount payable on 27-11-2003. The Ex.A2 is the postal receipt for sending the discharge deposit receipt to the opposite party. The Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement of the surrendered deposit receipt sent by the complainant vide Ex.a2 the default-tive conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount so far and hence holding the opposite party liability not only to the maturity amount of Rs.7,250/-, but also to the interest at 12% from the date of the maturity till its payment. The facts so envisaged in Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 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 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 the Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Raji -Vs- Amog Industries reported in 1993 (3) CPR 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 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 Honourable Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited -Vs- Vastla Baba Saheb Gaikward reported in I (2003) CPJ 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 sated decisions holding the liability of the opposite party for refund of the accrued matured amount with interest 12% per annum from the date of the maturity till realization and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs 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 to pay the matured amount of Rs.7,250/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the maturity and Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony 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, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :- Nil For the opposite parties :- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Attested copy of MR No.009/58/P dated 28-11-2000 (Membership receipt) of Sontha Siva Sai Kumar issued by opposite party for Rs.7,250/- to matured value.
Ex.A2 Postal receipt No.4125 as Ex.A1 sent by R.P.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement of opposite party as to the receipt of Ex.A1.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NIL
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
