<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER<br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1879/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.N.Krishnaswami Rao,Hindu,Major,No.101, Aatroya Apartments,No.57, 10th Main,Between 15th & 16th Cross,Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 055.Advocate – Sri.S.Krishnaswamy<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY V/sMedinova Diagnostic Services Ltd.,No.55, Infantry Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Represented by itsDirector.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking for the refund of the deposit which he has made with the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> 2. The complainant has deposited his hard earned money with the OP as per the chart given below in the year 2000 for a period of three years. The date of maturity of the said deposit was on 21.07.2003. On the date of maturity OP was liable to pay Rs.7,250/-. After the date of maturity complainant surrendered the original FDR receipt. OP failed to pay the same. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to refund the amount have gone in vain. Complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances complainant is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> Sl.No. ComplaintNo. Name MDR No. Amount Deposited Maturity Value Date of Maturity<br /> 1) 1879/08 Krishnaswami Rao S.N. 06105/0 R Rs.5,000/- Rs.7,250/- 21.07.2003<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with Gold Card scheme floated by the OP made deposit of Rs.5,000/- for a period of 3 years. After 3 years complainant approached the OP to refund the said deposit which will come down to Rs.7,250/-. Unfortunately OP failed to refund the said amount. Complainant even got issued the notice, there was no response. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant has produced the supporting documents like deposit receipt, notice and postal acknowledgements etc. Complainant evidence finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> <br /> 6. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in vain. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove that he made deposit of Rs.5,000/- and OP agreed to refund the said deposit with interest which will come to Rs.7,250/- after the expiry of 3 years i.e., on 21.07.2003. Thereafter some how OP failed to keep up its promise. By retaining the said huge amount OP accrued the wrongful gain to itself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Hence we find it is a fit case wherein complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,250/- to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from August 2003 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to comply this order within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> V.l.n* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />