Before 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 10th day of September, 2003
C.D.No112/2003
Yerra Shankar Reddy,
S/o. Bala Narsi Reddy,
H.No.29-332-30 C,
Near Govt, Polytechnic
College, Nandyal Town.
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Sri V.Venkateswara Reddy.
-Vs-
Medinova Diagnostic service Ltd.,
Rep.by Its Managing Director,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
IIIrd florr,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Inperson
O R D E R
This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him Rs.7,850/- with 12% per annum from the date of maturity there on to till realization, RS.2,000/- for mental agony costs of the complaint and also providing him such other reliefs which the complainant may remain entitled in the exigencies of the case.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited with the opposite party for RS.5, 000/- on 1.1.1999 and obtained MDR No.01865/X for a period of 3 years maturing on 31.12.2001 and on maturity he discharged the said receipt and sent it to the opposite party and it was acknowledgement by the opposite party. But the said matured amount as was not paid by the opposite party a legal notice dt 14.8.2002 was caused and it was acknowledged y the opposite party. But the said amount demand was neither complied not replied.
The complainant enclosed to his complaint Xerox copy of said fixed deposit receipt, acknowledgement dt 25.3.2002, legal notice dt 14.8.2002 and its postal acknowledgement and postal receipt No.2029 and they are marked as Ex A.1 to Ex.A.5 for their appreciation in this case. The complainant filed a sworn affidavit in re-iteration of his claim and the documents afore said.
The opposite party inspire of receipt of the notice of this case did not contest the matter by filling any of its written version denying the truth and bonafidies of the complainants claim.
Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for:-
The Ex A.1 Xerox copy of MDR NO.01865/X envisages a deposit of RS.5, 000/- by Yerram Shanka Reddy with the opposite party on 1.1.1999 for a period of 3 years concluding by 31.12.2001 for a refundable matured value of RS.7,850/- . The original of said MDR was said to have been duly discharged and submitted by the complainant to the opposite party for making the payment of the said refundable maturity value and the said MDR sent was said to have been acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex A.2. The Ex A.3 office copy of the legal notice envisages that it was issued seeking the refund of the maturity value of the said MDR as said amount was not paid to the complainant inspite of the submission of the said MDR by the complainant duly discharging it and its acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex A.2. The receipt of the said legal notice was acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex.A.5. There is no further material on record as to any satisfactory discharge of the said liability by the opposite party. As there is no denial of the claim of the complainant it is remaining established conclusively vide the documents marked afore said and hence the complainant is remaining entitled to the claim made in this case.
Therefore the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite party to pay RS.7850/- matured amount of MDR No. 01865/X dt 1.1.1999 to the complainant with in a month of the receipt of this order indefault the opposite party is liable to pay the said amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of maturity till realization of the entire amount and RS.500/- towards costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the open court this the 10th day of September, 2003
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
