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 28th day of June, 2005
C.D.No.81/2005
Paluri Raja, S/o. Rama Chandraiah,
H.No. C-8, Balaji Complex, Nandyal town, Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri A. Prabakara Reddy.
-Vs-
1. Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic services ltd, 6-3-652, Kowtilya, 3rd floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
2. The Branch Manager,
Medinova Diagnostic Center, Branch of Medinova Services Ltd, Near Sanjeeva Nagar Gate, Opp. Dhwaraka Hotel, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party.
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 party for refund of the mature amount of Rs.7, 850/- with interest at 19% from 7.1.2002, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and suffering, costs of the complaint and any such other relief which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that he has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the opposite party on 6.1.1999 for three years under membership deposit receipt bearing No. 01879/X and on its maturity the amount to be refunded to the depositor was Rs.7,850/-. After maturity the complainant send the said MDR to opposite party for refund of maturity amount, but the opposite party did not pay the said maturity amount but send a cheque bearing No.963675 dt 10.10.2004 for Rs. 5,000/- and it was dishonored. As the above conduct of the opposite party in not paying the maturity amount is amounting to deficiency 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 and by their absence to the proceedings and remained exparte.
4. The complainant in substantiation of his case relied on the documentary evidence in Ex A.1 to E.A.3 besides to his sworn affidavit 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 is the letter dt 1.3.2004 of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant acknowledging the receipt of membership deposit receipt No. 01879/X. It envisages sending of a cheque bearing No.963675 dt 10.10.2004 for Rs. 5,000/- drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by the opposite party to the complainant.
7. The Ex A.2 is the Cheque bearing No. 963675 dt 10.10.2004 for Rs. 5,000/- issued by opposite party to the complainant. The Ex A.3 is the cheque returing memo of ING VYSYA BANK LTD dt 17.2.2005, returning the cheque bearing No. 963675 dt 10.10.2004 with endorsement as the account holder is not having sufficient funds for encashing the said cheque. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.3 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 Commissin, 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 firms 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 complainant 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 complainant is remaining entitled to the said maturity amount of Rs.7,850/-. As the opposite party by their non-responsive conduct appears to have caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant and ultimately led the complainant to the Forum for redressal of her grievances the opposite party are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- 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 complainant Rs.7,850/- with interest at 12 percent per annum from 5.1.2002 along with Rs.2,000/- 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 28th day of June, 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 For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 is the letter dt 1.3.2004 of -Nil-
The opposite party No.1 to the
Complainant for MDR No. 01879/X.
Ex A.2 is the cheque bearing No. 963675
For Rs. 5,000/- issued by opposite party
To the complainant.
Ex A.3 is the cheque returning memo
ING VYSYA BANK dt 17.02.2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
