BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 1st day of July, 2005
C.D.No.84/2005
1. Pankaj Anantham,
W/o. Ramesh Anantham,
H.No. 43/253-1-J-9,
Sankal Bagh,
Kurnool.
2. M.S. Anantham,
W/o.John Anantham,
H.No. 43/253-1-J-9,
Sankal Bagh,
Kurnool.
3. Ramesh Anantham,
W/o. John Anantham,
H.No. 43/253-1-J-9,
Sankal Bagh,
Kurnool. . . . Complainants
-Vs-
1. Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic services ltd,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
3rd floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 29.06.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri.A.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for complainants 1 to 3 and opposite party set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following
O R D E R
( As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
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 for refund of the mature amount of Rs.7,850/- each under three MDRs. No.s 00383/P, 00384/P and 00385/P with interest at 24% from 9.12.2003, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering and costs to each complainant and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainants are entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the opposite party on 9.12.2000 to 8.12.2003 for three years in his name, his wife’s name and in the name of his mother under membership deposit receipt bearing No.s 00383/P, 00384/P and 00385/P and on its maturity on 8.12.2003 the amount to be refunded to each depositor was Rs.7,850/-. After maturity the complainant send the said MDRs to opposite party for refund of maturity amount, and got issued a lawyer’s notice on 4.12.2004 demanding for payment of matured amount on the said deposits and the said notice was received by opposite party but the opposite party did not pay the said maturity amount inspite of several requests and demands. As the above conduct of the opposite party in not paying the maturity amount is amounting to deficieny of service to the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party demanding the payment of the maturity value of Rs.7,850/- with over due interest. The above conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount and not keeping its commitments amounting to deficiency of service and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
3. Inspite of receipt of the notice issued by this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party did not turn up to the case proceedings by filing any written version in their defence by their absence to the proceedings and remained exparte.
4. The complainants in substantiation of his case relied on the documentary evidence in Ex A.1 to E.A.6 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant No.1 in reiteration of his complaint avernments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties entitling him to the reliefs claimed?:-
6. The Ex A.1 ,A.2 and A.3 are the xerox copies of the membership deposit receipt No.s 00383/P , 00384/P and 00385/P, they envisages the deposit of Rs.5,000/- by the complainants with the opposite party on 9.12.2000 to 8.12.2003 for a period of three years for the amount of Rs.7,250/- refundable on maturity. In the absence of any contra material there appears no material to doubt the bonafidies of the factum envisaged in Ex A.1, A.2 and A.3.
7. The Ex A.4 is the covering letter of the complainants to opposite party sending therein the three MDRs bearing No. s 00383/P, 00384/P and 00385/P for payment of matured amount in respect of the above MDRs and requests for payment at the earliest. The A.5 is the postal acknowledgement dt 7.12.2004 acknowledging the receipt of covering letter of the complainant by the opposite party. Ex A.6 is the letter dt 18.3.2005 of the opposite party to the complainants requesting time for arranging the payments against the said MDRs within a short period and requestes the complainants to accept the references mentioned in the said letter. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.6 and the complaint avernments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit avernemnts in re-teration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite party and hence there appears every bonafides in the claim of the complainant.
8. 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 decisions of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neels Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in1993 (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 12% 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 I (2003) C.P.J page 260.
10. In the present case also the opposite party firm inviting the public deposits on a promise of payment of matured amount on a tenure of three years from the date of deposit did not kept up the said commitment to the complainant by avoiding the payment of matured amount. Thus, the said lapsive conduct of opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service at the complainants consumer depositor and there by the grievances are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite party for refund of accrued matured amount with 12 % interest per annum form the of maturity. Hence, the complainants are remaining entitled to the said maturity amount of Rs.7,250/-. As the opposite party by their non-responsive conduct appears to have caused mental agony and suffering to the complainants and ultimately led the complainants to the Forum for redressal of their grievances and the opposite party are liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
11. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainants Rs.7,250/- each ( under three MDRs No. 00383/P, 00384/P and 00385/P) with interest at 12% per annum from 8.12.2003 along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and Rs.1,000/- as 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 1st day of July, 2005
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainants For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainants For the opposite party
Ex A.1 Is the xerox copy of the MDR
No. 00383/P of opposite party to the -Nil-
complainant No.1 for the maturity of Rs. 7,250/-.
Ex A.2 Is the xerox copy of MDR
NO. 00384/P of opposite party to the
complainant No.2 for the maturity of Rs.7,250/-.
Ex A.3 Is the xerox copy of MDR
No. 00385/P of opposite party to the
complainant No.3 for the maturity of Rs. 7,250/-.
Ex A.4 The original covering letter of the
complainants to opposite party.
Ex A.5 The postal acknowledgment dt 7.12.2004.
Ex A.6 The letter dt 18.3.2005 of the opposite party
to the complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties:
