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
Tuesday the 20th day of September , 2005
CC NO. 128/2005
N. Sri Vishbu Sai Sumanth, (Minor) Rep by her mother N. Jaya Bharathi, W/o. N.Srinivas,
H.No. 9, State Bank Colony, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, M.S.R Hospital,
Franchiese centre- of Medinova Diagnostic Services center,Near Sanjeeva Nagar Gate, Opp. Dwaraka Hotel, Nandyal. .
. . .
Opposite party
2. The Managing Director, Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
6-3-652, Kautilya, 3rd floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 16.9.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, for complainant, Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is field under section 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 3,625/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this case.
2 The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on 30.6.2000 for a period of 36 months i.e upto 29.6.2003 with the opposite party No.2 through the opposite party No.1 in his name for a refundable matured amount of Rs. 3,625/- vide membership deposit receipt No. 01133/0. The complainant sent the original MDR to the opposite party No.2 on 9.7.2003 for realization of maturity amount on the same was acknowledge by him on 11.7.2003. But the opposite party No.2 even though nearly one year was completed did not pay the amount payable to him. Finally on 3.8.2004 he got issued the legal notice to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel, even after receipt of it the opposite party No.2 not paid the maturity 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 of maturity amount of Rs. 3,625/-, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of the complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of the 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 defence and there by remained exparte and the opposite party No.1 appear before this Forum through their standing counsel and filed written version and sworn affidavit along with memorandum and articles of association denying all the material averments made in the complaint and further submits that the opposite party No.1 is not at all concerned with alleged MDR issued to the complainant and there is no previty or contract or of any type of relations with the complainant and the opposite party No.1 company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as there is any type of negligence or deficiency of service on their part as the complainant is not concern with their company, thus the complaint against the opposite party No.1 is to be dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
4. While such is so with the opposite party No.1 and No.2 the complainant in substantiation of his case relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.5 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 entitle him for the reliefs sought.
6. The Ex A.5 is an attested Xerox copy of postal acknowledgment dated 11.7.2003 of the opposite party No.2 for the receipt of the original MDR No. 01133/0. The Ex A.4 is an attested Xerox copy of the above said MDR, the original of it sent to the opposite party No.2, the same was received by him through the Ex A.5. The Ex A.1 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 3.8.2004 issued by the complainant through his counsel. The Ex A.2 is an attested Xerox copy of postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.2 dated 5.8.2004 for receipt of Ex A.1. The Ex A.3 is the original provisional receipt dated 30.6.2000 for Rs. 13,955/- for four applications issued by the opposite party No.2 which he received the said amount through D.D drawn on the VYsya Bank Ltd, Nandyal. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.5 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit averments in reiteration of its case or neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party No.2 on their appears, every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant. As against the opposite party No.1 there was no deficiency established by the complainant, the complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
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 Hon’ble 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 not honouring 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 No.2’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 keep 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 to 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 No.2 for refund of the accrued matured amount with interest at 12% 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 party No.2 and costs of Rs.1,000/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite party No.2 to the Forum for redressal.
10. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the matured amount of Rs. 3,625/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for suffered mental agony at the deficient conduct of the said opposite party 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, pronounced in the Open Court this the 20th day of September, 2005
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 The office copy of the legal notice dated 3.8.2004 issued by the
Complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.2.
Ex A.2 The attested xerox copy of postal acknowledgement of opposite party
No.2 Dated 5.8.2004 for receipt of Ex A.1.
Ex .3 The original provisional receipt dated 30.6.2000.
Ex B.4 The attested xerox copy of MDR for matured amount of Rs.5,800/- vide
MDR No. 01133/0.
Ex B.5 The attested xerox copy of postal acknowledgement dated 11.7.2003.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
3. The Managing Director, Medinova Diagnostic Service ltd, 6-3-652, Kautilaya, 3rd floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
