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

Monday the 24^th day of May, 2004

C.D.No.33 /2004

K,Venkata Reddy,

R/o. H.No.C/10, M.S.Nagar, Kurnool Dist.                                                  

                       . . . In person

   -Vs-

1.The Managing Director,  Medinova Diagnostic Services Center,

   6-1-652,Kautilya,Somajiguda, Hyderabad.             

                                                       ….Opposite Party

 2. The Managing Director, 

    Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,     R.S.Road,   Nandyal.

                                                                                             . . . Opposite party

O R D E R

(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)

1.This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under Sec. 12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay the complainant the maturity amount of RS.7,250/- in the fixed deposit bearing No. MDR 6558/P with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the maturity till realization, RS.1,000/- towards mental agony, RS.2,000/- towards the costs of the litigation and such other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.

1. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that an amount of RS.5,000/- was deposited by the complainant with the O.P.No.1 through the O.P.No.2 for a period of 36 months for the maturity value of RS 7,250/- and in token of the said deposit the opposite party No.1 issued a certificate bearing MDR N0.6558/P in favour of the complainant accordingly.  On maturity the said deposit receipt was duly discharged by complainant and sent to the opposite party No.1 requesting for the payment of the matured amount, but the opposite party did not arrange the said amounts inspite of several demands by his avoiding conduct and the said conduct amounts to deficiency of service and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal as the complainant was not only deprived of the matured amount but also was put to mental agony and costs of this litigation.

3.         Inspite of  service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties neither turned up to the proceedings nor made any contest to the complainant’s case dis-owning their liability.

4. The complainant in support of its case relied upon the documentary record marked as Ex A.1 besides to  his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its case and the document.

1. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties in defaulting the payment of the matured amount and there by his entitleness to the reliefs claimed?:-

6.         The Ex A.1 is the letter dt 23/3/2004 of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of the MDR No.6558/P matured on 13.12.2003 for RS.7,250 said deposit amount acknowledging the receipt of said M.D.R. promising its payment in due course the opposite party did not fulfil the said promise

1.   When the Company or a Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest, it is a service and the depositor is a Consumer as per the decision of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commissionin Neela Vasantha Rajee Vs Amog Industries and another reported in 1993 (3) C.P.R Page 345.
2. The Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchayani Savings Investment (India) Limited Vs Vatsala Baba  Saheb Gaiquad Reported in I (2003) CPJ 260 holds Financial Institutions deficiency in its service in not honoring the commitments  when amounts under various deposits with the accrued benefits are not released to the depositors.
3. As the opposite parties has accepted the deposits of the complainant to pay the maturity amount of RS.7,250/- on the date of the maturity they are under the service obligation to honour their commitment and when they avoid for honoring their commitment by releasing the accrued amounts to the depositor their conduct in the light of the above decisions is amounting to deficiency of service towards the depositor.
4. In the light of the above substantiated record as the privy of the complainant with the opposite parties and the liability of the opposite parties towards the complainant and the opposite parties deficiency of service at their non responsive conduct as is made out there appears every bonafidies in the cause of action and claim of the complainant.
5. Therefore, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount of RS.7,250/- under the MDR No.6558/P with an interest at 9% per annum from the date of the maturity RS.1,000/- 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, pronounced in the                Open Court, this the 24^th day of May,2004.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

       Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                       MEMBER