COMPLAINT FILED:02-12-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 15-02-2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 15TH FEBRUARY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2065/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT B.S. Basavaraju,<br /> No.22, 2nd Cross,<br /> Gejje Basetty Lane<br /> Cottonpet Cross,<br /> Bangalore –560 053<br /> <br /> Party in Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY General Manager,<br /> M/s.Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd.,<br /> No.55, Infantry Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <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 direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund deposit of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 19% p.a. for 11½ years and compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant became the member of the medinova Gold Card scheme of the OP and invested Rs.5,000/- towards refundable deposit by way of cheque dated 08.12.1997 drawn on Karnataka Co-operative Bank Ltd., and received medinova Gold Card from the OP, on 17.02.1998. The validity was up to 31.01.2001 on the date of maturity OP was liable to pay Rs.7,850/-. On 08.02.2001 the complainant received a letter from the registered office of OP stating that amount will be refunded after six months. After six months complainant approached the OP on 06.08.2002. Again OP gave the fresh date as 13.08.2003 for refund of amount. Again complainant visited the OP on 21.08.2003 and 08.06.2004. OP gave the reason as shortage of funds. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to refund the amount have gone in vain. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that OP is the premier diagnostic services providers in the country. OP with a view to expand the business and up gradation of diagnostic facilities had raised funds by expecting medical membership deposits from the general public. The idea was to provide services to the depositor member at a discount rate and also pay certain percentage of interest to them. However the depositors like the petitioner were interested only in interest income and not in the service provided. The OP though is profit making company has not been able to cope up with the refund demands which started maturing in the year 1994. OP’s refunding the deposit on a regular basis priority being given to aged depositors and year wise and have cleared more than 50% of their liability and intend to clear all their liability within 5 years. The non-refund of deposit in time is not intentional same is bonafide. Complainant has availed services in return to the gold card deposit and availed malya hospital coupons. No liability can be fixed on OP; when once the parties accept utilization under the free coupon scheme, the earlier contract of refunding the deposit ceases. Hence OP is not liable to indemnify the claim against the 3rd parties. OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP filed version but failed to file the affidavit evidence. Complainant filed reply to the version. Heard the arguments.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant lured away with the gold card scheme floated by the OP made deposit of Rs.5,000/- by way of cheque dated 08-12-1997 and received medinova gold card from the OP on 17-02-1998. After 3 years i.e., on the date of maturity complainant is entitled to receive Rs.7,850/- from the OP on 31-01-2001. On 08-02-2001 complainant received a letter from the registered office of the OP stating amount will be refunded after six months. After six months complainant approached OP. Again OP gave the fresh date as 13-08-2003 for refunding the amount. On 21-08-2003, 08-06-2004 complainant visited OP. OP gave the reason of shortage of funds. The letters issued by OP are produced. OP failed to pay the same. Complainant caused the legal notice demanding payment of amount with 19% interest. Inspite of service of notice, there was no response from OP. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this the defence of the OP that complainant has availed service in return to the gold card deposit and availed malya hospital coupons, has been denied by the complainant in toto in his reply to the version. Hence the version of the OP cannot be accepted. Complainant has produced deposit receipt, copy of the gold card and legal notice and RPAD acknowledgement and correspondences. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not refunding deposit amount of Rs.5000/- which OP agreed to refund with 19% on the date of maturity i.e., on 31-01-2001. OP failed to keep up its promise and caused wrongful loss to the complainant for no fault of his. Hence we find it is a fit case where in complainant is to be granted for the relief claimed with 9% interest from 01-02-2001 till realization. Accordingly proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to refund Rs.7,850/- to the complainant together with interest at 9% p.a. from 01-02-2001 till realization and also pay litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of February 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />