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

Wednesday the 20^th day of October, 2004

C.D.No.86/2004

1.A.V.Nageswara Rao,

   S/o. A.Pullaiah,

   D.No.25/287-A,

   Sanjeeva Nagar,

   Nandyal.

2. A.Dhanalakshmi,

    W/o. A.V.Nageswara Rao,

    D.No. 25/287-A,

    Sanjeeva Nagar,

    Nandyal.                                                                                           . . . Complainants represented by their counsel

                                                                                                                      Sri B.J.P Narayana Reddy.

-Vs-

1. Chairman & Managing Director,

    Adala Raghava Reddy,

    Medinova Diagnostic services ltd,

    6-3-652, Kowtilya,

    3^rd floor, Somajiguda,

    Hyderabad.                                                                              . . . Opposite party

2.Basu Takur,

   Director,

   Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,

   6-3-652, Kowtilya,

   3^rd floor,

   Somajiguda,

   Hyderabad.                                                                               … Opposite party.

3. The Managing Director,

    Medinova Diagnostic services Ltd,

    Franchises M.S.R Hospitals (P)Ltd,

    25/179 Station Road,

    Nandyal.                                                                   . . . Opposite party  

O R D E R

1.             This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the maturity amounts of Rs.7,250/- and Rs.5,800/- of the complainants 1&2 matured on 4.7.2003 with future interest at 15percent on them till realization and costs of this case.

2.             The brief facts of the complainants case are that they have deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- & 4,000/- separately on 5.7.2000 with the opposite party and the said amount on its maturity on 4.7.2003 shall be payable as Rs.7,250/- and Rs.5,800/- and to that effect the complainants were issued membership deposit receipts for the said amounts vide MDR No.s.05124/OR respectively.  Inspite of surrender of M.D.R receipts duly on 4.7.2003 duly discharging them the opposite parties having acknowledged the same did not respond to the complainants either complying the payment or making any reply.  The opposite party was reminded for the said demand on 26.7.2003 and 25.8.2003 and the opposite parties did not respond to them also inspite of their acknowledgements. The above said conduct of the opposite parties in not refunding and responding is amounting to deficiency of service giving rise to this case.

3.             Inspite of the receipt of the notice issued by this Forum as to this case of the complainants the opposite parties remind exparte without filing any written version to the claim of the complainants.

4.             In substantiation of the complaint avernments the complainants relied upon their sworn affidavits besides to the documentary record marked as Ex A.1 to A.9.

5.             Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainants  have made out the alleged deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties entitling them to the reliefs claimed:-

6.             The EX A.1 and A.2 are the attested Xeroxes of the duly discharged membership deposit receipts of the complainants.  While the Ex A.1 envisages a deposit of Rs.5,000/- on 5.7.2000 by the complainant No.1 for a period of 3 years with the opposite party for the maturity amount of Rs.7,250/- and its due discharge by the complainant No.1 for the said matured amount, the Ex A.2 envisages the deposit of Rs.4,000/- by the complainant No.2 on 5.7.2000 with the opposite party for a period of 3 years for a matured amount of Rs.5,800/- and its due discharge by the said complainant No.2.  The facts envisaged in Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 remains conclusively established to the above effect in the absence of any material contradicting the same.  Hence from the Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 the privy between the complainants and the opposite parties are remaining conclusively established as depositors and the institution which accepted the deposits agreeing to the terms mentioned there under for refund of the matured amount on the date of its maturity.

1. The Ex A.3 letter dt 4.7.2003 of the complainants  to the opposite party envisages the surrender of duly discharged membership deposit receipts for the payment of the mature amount as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  The Ex A.4 postal receipt bearing No.4303 dt 4.7.2003 under which the Ex A.1 to A.3 was sent.  The Ex A.5 envisages the acknowledgement of the opposite party of that material which was sent under Ex A.1 to A.4.  In the absence of any contra material there appears no reason to doubt the bonafidies of the Ex A.1 to Ex A.5.  The Ex A.6 and Ex A.9 are the reminder letters of the complainants to the opposite party seeking for refund the matured amount.  The Ex A.6 said to have been sent under Ex A.7 was acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex A.8.  The complainants allege that the opposite parties did not respond to any of them either by payment of the mature amount or by giving any reply.  In the absence of any contra material there appears no material to doubt the bonafides of the said contention.

8.             When a Company or Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest of 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 Among Industries reported in 1993 (3) C.P.r page 345.

9.             When the amount under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of 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 Hon ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani Savings and Investments (India) Limited Vs Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in 1(2003) C.P.J. Page 260.

10.          In the present case also the opposite party inviting the public deposit on a promise of payment of the matured amount on efflux of three years from the date of the deposit did not kept up the said commitment to the complainants by avoiding the payment of the matured amount.  Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service at the complainants and there by the grievances of the complainants as consumer depositor are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite party for the refund of the accrued matured amount with interest at 12percent per annum from the date of maturity till realization and Rs.1,000/- towards the costs as the complainants were driven by the opposite party to the Forum for redressal.

11.          Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the matured amount of Ex A.1 and Ex A.2 i.e Rs.7,250/- and Rs.5,800/- to the complainants 1&2 respectively with interest at 12percent per annum from the date of the maturity 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 20^th day of October, 2004.

PRESIDENT

                MEMBER                                                                                                                             MEMBER