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 16th day of December, 2004
CD No.121/2004
Katam Veerabhadra Reddy,
W/o Katam Lakshmi Kantha Reddy,
R/o H.No.49/50A-87F-12,
Lakshmi Nagar,
Kurnool District. ……Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri.Katam Srinivasa Reddy.
-Vs-
- The Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Limited,
6-3-652, Koutilya,
3rd Floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. …Opposite party
- The Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Limited,
Franchisee to MSR Hospital,
R.S.Road,
Nandyal,
Kurnool District. …Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Sri.R.Ramachandre Reddy, Member)
CC.No.121/2004
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 parties 1 and 2 to pay him Rs.7,250/- with interest at the rate of 24percent per annum from the date of the maturity till realization and 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 04-01-2001 to 03-01-2004 with the opposite party No.1 for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,250/- vide Member Ship deposit receipt No.01651/P on 04-01-2004, the complainant send the original deposit receipt to the opposite party No.1 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite party No.1 on 07-01-2004 and informed the complainant that the opposite party No.1 is confident of releasing the payment in a period of 24 months. As the opposite party No.1 did not refund the said due amount and expressed his inability in the above said letter and hence the act of the opposite party No.1 in not praying the maturity amount of Rs.7,250/- was held deficiency of service to the complainant. Since the opposite party No.1 did not comply with the demand for refund of the matured amount is the lapsive conduct of the opposite party No.1 constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim of the matured amount of Rs.7,250/- and costs of this complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
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 this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any deference and there by 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.A1 and Ex.A2 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 parties towards him entitling hjm for the reliefs sought?
6. The Ex.A1 is an attested Xerox copy of the Membership deposit receipt No.01651/P dated 04.01.2001. It envisages the receipt of an Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 04.01.2001 by the opposite party No1 assuring the payment of Rs.7,250/- as the maturity amount payable on 03.01.2004. The Ex.A2 is an attested Xerox copy of the letter dated 07.01.2004 wherein the opposite party No.1 acknowledged the said receipt of Ex.A1 dated 04.01.2001. The complainant alleges deficiency of service for the defaulive conduct of the opposite party No.1 in not refunding the amount so far in spite of the receipt of the said maturity deposit amount and hence holding the opposite party No.1 liable not only to the matured amount of Rs.7,250/- but also interest from the date of the maturity till the date of payment. The facts so envisaged in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the complaint averments and the complainant sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties 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) 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 the not honoring the said commitment amounts to deficiency and the financial institution is liable to refund the accrued amount with 12percent interest as per the decision of the Honorable Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited -Vs- Vasthala Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in (2003) CPJ 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 tenure of 3years form 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 parties is amounting to deficiency of service 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 12percent per annum from the date of the maturity and compensation of Rs.1,000/-for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of the 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 inters tar 12percent per annum from the date of the maturity till realization and Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties and Rs.1,000/- towards costs with 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 16th day of December, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Is an attested Xerox copy of the Membership No.01651/PR dated
04-01-2001 an amount of Rs.5,000/-
Ex.A2 In an attested Xerox copy of letter dated 07-01-2004 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party No.1.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties :- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
