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 25th day of February, 2004
C.D.No.12 /2004
K.S.Parimala, D/o. K.Parthasarthi, Rep. by father K.Parthasarathi,
R/o.H.No.5/61, Pathapeta, Kurnool Dist. . . .
Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri A.Rama Subba Reddy
-Vs-
Medinova Diagnostics Services Ltd., Re.by Its Managing Director,
6-3-652, Kowtilya, IIIrd Floor, Somaji Guda, Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite party.
O R DE R
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite party for the payment of RS. 3,925/- with 19% interest per annum from the date of the maturity, RS.2,000/- towards mental agony and costs and such other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that in pursuance of the advertisement of the M/s Chekra Investment, Vijayawada inviting fixed deposits from the public on assured attractive return of RS.1425/-on deposit of RS.2,500/- within 3 years, the complainant has deposited through Raja Raja Sekhar Reddy Agent of Chekra Investment, Vijayawada the opposite party Registered firm a sum of Rs. 2,500/-on Dt 12.7.98 for a promised maturity value of RS.3,925/- on 3 years from date of deposit and obtained fixed deposit bond No. MDR .No. 904/1X by post from opposite party. But the opposite party did not pay the maured amount on the maturity inspite of its surrender after due discharge and several demands except issuing through said Raja Sekhar Reddy as letters of acknowledgement there of the receipt of said MDR and on maturity to pay due amount 12 months did not pay the due amount and the said conduct of the opposite party as amounting to deficiency of service of supine degree on the part of the opposite party, it constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. Inspite of the service of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party neither appeared before this Forum nor contested the case of the complainant by filing any written version with any defence and thus remained exparte.
4. While such is so with the opposite parties the complainant in substantiation of its case relied upon the documentary record in exhibits A.1 besides to his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of the complaint averments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the case of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party towards him entitling him/her for the reliefs sought:-
6. The Ex A.1 dt 4.6.2002 envisages the receipt of M.D.R No. 904/IX of the complainant by the opposite party assuring the payment of RS.3,925/-in 12 months as maturity amount payable on dt 13.7.2001 apart from extending the previleges in diagnostic services in the meanwhile. The facts envisaged in Ex A.1 and in the complaint and the complainant’s sworn affidavit and the sworn affidavit of IIIrd party Raja Raja Sekhar supporting the case of complainant are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties side and hence there appears every bonafidies in them and in the claim of the complainant basing on them.
7. 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 Consumer as per the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Neela Vasantha Rajee V/S Amog Industries reported in 1993 (III) CPR Page 345.
8. When amounts under the various deposits with occurred benefits not released to the Depositors by the Financial Institutions, said conduct of not honouring 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 Hon’ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai in Sanchayani Savings and Investments (India) Limited V/s Vatsala Baba Saheb Gyquard reported in I (2003) CPJ page 260.
9. In the present case also the opposite party Firm inviting the public deposits on a promise of payment of attractive amounts on deposit of RS. 2,500/- in a period of 3 years from the date of deposit, did not kept up the said commitment to the complainant depositor by avoiding the payment of the matured amount. Thus the said lapsive conduct of the opposite party Firm is amounting to deficiency of service at the complainant-consumer Depositor, and there by the grievences of the complainant are covered under the supra stated decisions holding the liability of the opposite parties Firm for refund of the accrued mature amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the maturity in the absence of any stipulation for interest at 19% per annum on over due amount.
10. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the complainant the matured amount of RS. 3,925/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of maturity with compensation of RS.1,000/- for mental agony suffered by complainant and RS.500/- as costs within a month of the receipt of the order. In default, the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the said default till realization of the entire awarded amount.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open
Court this the 25th day of February, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
