Before the District Forum Kurnool
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
Monday the 21st day of March, 2005
C.D.No.137/2004
- P.Pullaiah,
S/o P.subbaiah.
- P.L.Narasimha,
S/o P.Pullaiah,
Both are resident of
H.No.6-37,
Rudravaram Post and Mandal.
Kurnool District. . ..Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri.G.Nagaraju, Advocate.
-Vs-
- The Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Center,
M.S.R. Hospital
Near Sanjeeva Nagar Gate,
Opp. Dwaraka Hotel,
Nandyal,
Kurnool. …Opposite party No.1 represented by his counsel
Sri.D.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate.
- M/s.Medinova Diagnostic Services Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Regd. Office, 6-3-652, Koutilya,
3rd Floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. …Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Sri.R.Ramachandre Reddy, Member)
CC.No.137/2004
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 and 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay them Rs.15,700/-, for two MDRs of the complainants with interest 18% per annum from the date of their maturity till realization, Rs.5,000/-as compensation and Rs.5,000/-costs of this case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainants are entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainants have deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- each with the opposite party No.2 under “GOLD CARD” scheme through Vysya Bank, Kurnool on 17-12-1999 which are refundable on the maturity date i.e., on 16-12-2002 an amount of Rs.7,850/- each and the complainants submitted the said two bonds to opposite party No.2 and the same are acknowledged on 26-03-2003 by the opposite party No.2 and requested to pay the said matured amounts and even though the complainants are also entitled to get privilege in taking better treatment in the opposite party Hospitals on concessional rates under the scheme but the opposite party No.2 could not provide the assured services during the year 2002 in-spite of repeated approaches for treatment to them nor after the expiry of the period i.e., by 16-12-2002. The complainants issued a legal notice on 02-07-2004 under the registered acknowledged due the said letter was received by the opposite party no.2. Even after the receipt of the said legal notice the opposite party No.2 did not refund the due amount, hence 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.15,700/-, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainants the opposite party No.2 neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant filing any written version with any deference and thereby remained exparte and opposite party No.1 appeared before this Forum through their standing counsel and filed statement and 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 the alleged MDRs issued to the complainants, and there is no privities or contract or of any other type of relations with the complainants and the opposite party No.1 Company is not liable any amount to the complainants as there is any type of negligence or deficiency of service on their part as the complainants are not concerned 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 parties 1 and 2, the complainants in substantiation of their case relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and interrogatories served to the affidavit of opposite party No.1 besides to their sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainants have made out the case of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards them entitling them for the reliefs sought.
6. The Ex.A1 is the acknowledged dated 26-03-2003 of opposite party No.2 for the receipt of M.D.R. No.01006/XIII. The Ex.A2 is the acknowledgement dated 26-03-2003 of opposite party No.2 for receipt of M.D.R.No.01005/XIII. The Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the complaints through their counsel. The Ex.A4 is the acknowledgement of opposite party No.2 for receipt of Ex.A3. Ex.A5 is the provisional receipt dated 17-12-1999 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Vysya Bank, Kurnool and Ex.A6 is the another provisional receipt dated 17-12-1999 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Vysya Bank, Kurnool. The facts so envisaged in Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 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 complainants.
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 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 the Honourable 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’s firm 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 complainants by avoiding the payment of the matured amounts. Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite party No.2 is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainants consumer depositor and thereby, the grievances of the complainants 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 till realization and costs of Rs.2,000/- as the complainants were driven by the opposite party No.2 is dismissed as there is no deficiency on its part.
10. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay to the complainants the matured amount of Rs.7,850/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the maturity till realization and Rs.2,000/- 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 21st day of March, 2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants:-Nil For the opposite parties:-Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-
Ex.A1 Acknowledgement dated 26-03-2003 of opposite party No.2 receipt of MDR No.01006/XIII.
Ex.A2 Acknowledgement dated 26-03-2003 of opposite party No.2 receipt of MDR No.01005/XIII.
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice to opposite party through complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A4 Acknowledgement of opposite party No.2 for receipt of Ex.A3.
Ex.A5 Provisional receipt dated 17-12-1999 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Vysya Bank, Kurnool.
Ex.A6 Provisional receipt dated 17-12-1999 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Vysya Bank, Kurnool.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
