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 30th day of December, 2004
CD No.122/2004
Thota Saraswathamma,
W/o Dr.Thota Tulaseeswara Reddy,
Koilakuntal Post,
Kurnool District. ……Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri.B.Rama Subba 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.122/2004
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.7,850/- with interest at the rate of 18percent per annum from the date of the maturity till realization, Rs.15,000/-as compensation and Rs.2,000/-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/- with the opposite party No.1 for a refundable matured amount of Rs.7,850/- on 15-12-2001 vide Member Ship deposit receipt No.08900/X-R on 25-05-2002 opposite party No.1 has acknowledged the above MDR and sent a letter to the complainant to this effect. Again on 07-08-2003 the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant admitting its liability to pay the said matured amount and further stating that the post dated cheque of May, 2004 will be sent to the complainant by post by March, 2004. But till the date of complaint the complainant neither received any cheque nor any other information regarding the delay in the payment of M.D.R. amount. Hence this act of the opposite party No.1 in not paying the maturity amount of Rs.7,850/- was held deficiency of service to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 did neither complied the demand for refund of the matured amount nor replied. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party No.1 constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claim of maturity amount of Rs.7,850/-, Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this complaint.
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 him for the reliefs sought?
6. The Ex.A1 is the acknowledgement letter dated 22-05-2002 of opposite party No.1 in receipt of M.D.R. No.08900/X-R matured on 15.12.2001. The Ex.A2 is the letter of the opposite party No.1 addressed to the complainant admitting its, liability to pay the said matured amount and further stating that a post dated cheque of May, 2004 will be sent to the complainant by post by March, 2004. The complainant alleges deficiency of service for the defaultive conduct of the opposite party No.1 in not refunding the amount so far in spite of several approaches and demands and hence holding the opposite party No.1 liability not only to the maturity amount of Rs.7,850/- 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 s 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) 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 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- Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in I (2003) CPJ Page 260.
9. In the present case also the opposite party No.1 inviting the public deposits on a promise of the payment of matured amount on tenure of 3 years from 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.7,850/- with interest at 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 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 30th 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 Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 22-05-2002 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A2 Letter dated 07-08-2003 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
